Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

NV released (lifted NDA) the next Kepler GPU today.

 

Like other X60 series cards it is just X80 with slower clocks (980 vs 1006) and a core disabled. But the card is smaller than others at 9.25 inches and has a TDP of only 170W.

 

Performance is near GTX 680 in games reviewed, less than 10% in most games, and it costs about $100.00 less. Like expected FSX was not included in any of the reviews. In non-FSX games the GTX 670 beat the GTX 580 and both of the AMD 79XX cards by a good margin.

 

GTX580 is currently listed at $430 on Newegg and the GTX 670 has an MSRP of $399.00. Hopefully it gives at or near 580 performance in FSX while using much less power and creating less heat. This appears to be great option for new rigs and those upgrading from less powerful fermi cards. But FSX is unique and hopefully someone gets their hands on one soon to see how it performs. No one knows if the 670 will be as slow to get out to the AIB 's and retailers as the 680 has been.

 

Here are links to reviews:

 

HardOCP:

http://hardocp.com/a...deo_card_review

 

Overclockers Club:

http://www.overclock.../nvidia_gtx670/

 

Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech...eview-feat-evga

 

Guru3D:

http://www.guru3d.co...gtx-670-review/

 

Legit:

http://www.legitrevi...article/1925/1/

 

Techspot:

http://www.techspot....eforce-gtx-670/

 

More can be found on HardOCP's review roundup:

http://www.hardocp.c..._review_roundup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the sweet spot card right now, though I still feel market prices are a bit high, and availability on Kepler is very low, took me over a week to find a 680 and the 670 isn't yet up for sale. My guess is they're just stock-piling to be able to sell all 3 cards simultaneously though. Availability should get much better very shortly if that's true.

 

FSX performance remains to be seen. I'll have my 680 in tonight for some testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing! I wonder how these will perform in FSX vs the 580. It wouldn't surprise me if they run slower than the 580 and the 680.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing! I wonder how these will perform in FSX vs the 580. It wouldn't surprise me if they run slower than the 580 and the 680.

 

Same here Ben, though outside of FSX it looks like the differences are very small. Some sites show them running neck-and-neck but the best roundup I saw showed an 11% average difference (for a $100 price difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here Ben, though outside of FSX it looks like the differences are very small. Some sites show them running neck-and-neck but the best roundup I saw showed an 11% average difference (for a $100 price difference).

 

 

Seems like it is an under-clocked, miniature 680. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see some custom PCB's that can OC this chip well beyond the 680.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it is an under-clocked, miniature 680. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see some custom PCB's that can OC this chip well beyond the 680.

 

Correct, it is simply a down-clocked 680 with less shaders. I have a feeling the 670 will be equal to the 580 and 680 in FSX.

 

The PCB was made smaller to accommodate SFF pc's and to be more energy efficient.

 

Here is NV's statement on the 7" PCB:

 

"To get the GeForce GTX 670 into smaller form factor chassis’, we made a number of adjustments to the reference board to save space. Thanks to the power efficiency of the GTX 670 GPU, we were able to move the GTX 670’s power supply to the west side of the GPU. The GPU was then rotated to improve power integrity and increase efficiency, as the power supply is much closer to the GPU than on traditional boards. With the GTX 670’s power circuitry moved to the other side of the board, the area on the right side of the PCB was empty and was therefore removed to save board space. To provide the cooling you’d expect on a high performance GPU, we then incorporated the same cooling fan used on the GeForce GTX 680. This fan is fitted with acoustic dampening material to minimize unwanted tones in the fan noise. The GTX 670’s blower fan exhausts hot air from the GPU outside the system chassis. This helps to reduce chassis temperature inside the PC, as GPU heat is blown outside the PC rather than being trapped within it. This feature is particularly beneficial for small form factor PCs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i might switch my 580 to that 670 for more energy efficiency and less heat. I doubt we'll see any differences in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will grab one of these soon - nearly bought one today in fact - as it offers a significant boost over the older mid-range, such as I have... even though they are overpriced, as all the latest cards are. FSX is only a minor concern for me now, so I'm not bothered if this does not offer much, if any, gain over the last generation of high-end hardware... FSX is simply too old and creaky to influence my choice of hardware anymore; I'm more interested in current titles and engines to give a damn if I gain a frame or two in FSX... it's simply not worth the hassle.

 

Certainly a better buy over the 680 in price v performance terms.

 

Plus I'll be glad to ditch AMD which I have come to loath and detest... although FSX again runs okay for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered one this one morning as soon as Newegg put them up for sale. Shipped this afternoon and should be here by Monday. I've been dying to replace my Radeon 5770 for the better part of a year now, and this card finally offers what I've been looking for.

 

I figure it'll be about on par with the GTX 580 in FSX (which is an old, CPU limited game), but it comfortably bests it in just about everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I figure it'll be about on par with the GTX 580 in FSX

 

Might be slightly slower but who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing! I wonder how these will perform in FSX vs the 580. It wouldn't surprise me if they run slower than the 580 and the 680.

 

Might be slightly slower but who knows...

 

Could you tell us what you're basing those statements on?

 

I'd be really surprised if the GTX 670 is slower than the GTX 580. The GTX 670 has over twice the number of processing cores, the same memory bandwidth, 25% more video memory, and a texture fill rate over twice that of the GTX 580.

 

I'm not saying that these GTX 670 specs will actually make a big difference in FSX, but why would it perform worse than a 580?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why would it perform worse than a 580?

 

Who knows... FSX is a bizarre engine and it doesn't particularly like new hardware sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you tell us what you're basing those statements on?

 

I'd be really surprised if the GTX 670 is slower than the GTX 580. The GTX 670 has over twice the number of processing cores, the same memory bandwidth, 25% more video memory, and a texture fill rate over twice that of the GTX 580.

 

I'm not saying that these GTX 670 specs will actually make a big difference in FSX, but why would it perform worse than a 580?

 

32 ROPs vs 48 ROPs in the 480 & 580. ROPs are supposed to be there for crunching AA, and that's what I want in FSX, not so much for geometry.

<<expression removed by ADMIN - due to received complaint.>> *Please refrain from using questionable expressions/comments verging on the inappropriate*

Mind you I really have no idea if things work like that or not

 

Also even though it has twice the SP's a 580, the shader clock runs now at 1x the core clock, when the 500 series was 2x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that both people who replied to my comments have the GTX 580...

 

I understand the skepticism from folks who paid a lot of money for a GTX 580 video card and then found out that a newer card which costs the same or less offers much better performance. This may not necessarily be the case with FSX performance, but with other games it has already been demonstrated.

 

I'm still using an old GTX 285, but my next purchase will definitely be a GTX 670, not a 580.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my GTX670 already, purchased it a while back. Using a power meter i saw my average power usage in FSX going down from ~200W to ~130W during flight (same region, same airplane). Not only that but the 580 would heat up to around 70ºC and this one doesn't even reach 60ºC.

 

As far as performance goes, i DO notice a bit faster screen redraw but nothing that makes me jump and say "yay, it IS much better". No, it's just better or it's not worse than a 580 if you prefer.

 

Happy 670 owner ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my GTX670 already, purchased it a while back. Using a power meter i saw my average power usage in FSX going down from ~200W to ~130W during flight (same region, same airplane). Not only that but the 580 would heat up to around 70ºC and this one doesn't even reach 60ºC.

 

As far as performance goes, i DO notice a bit faster screen redraw but nothing that makes me jump and say "yay, it IS much better". No, it's just better or it's not worse than a 580 if you prefer.

 

Happy 670 owner ;)

 

Would you mind taking the FSMark11 benchmark?

This will really help us [in the hardware forum] decide whether the new Nvidia cards are worth the upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that both people who replied to my comments have the GTX 580...

 

I understand the skepticism from folks who paid a lot of money for a GTX 580 video card and then found out that a newer card which costs the same or less offers much better performance. This may not necessarily be the case with FSX performance, but with other games it has already been demonstrated.

 

I'm still using an old GTX 285, but my next purchase will definitely be a GTX 670, not a 580.

 

nah, it's not that dave.

I'm just curious because going from a 480 to a 580 I haven't really seen much of a perf boost, and both happen to sport 48 ROPS.

 

Would you mind running some quick test with 2x or 4xSGSS for us please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind taking the FSMark11 benchmark?

This will really help us [in the hardware forum] decide whether the new Nvidia cards are worth the upgrade.

 

I would, but it requires the default 737 and i don't have it (deleted all default A/C). It also requires standard FSX scenery and my scenery is far from default, i have many terrain meshes and texture addons :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 ROPs vs 48 ROPs in the 480 & 580. ROPs are supposed to be there for crunching AA, and that's what I want in FSX, not so much for geometry.

<<expression removed by ADMIN - due to received complaint.>> *Please refrain from using questionable expressions/comments verging on the inappropriate*

Mind you I really have no idea if things work like that or not

 

Also even though it has twice the SP's a 580, the shader clock runs now at 1x the core clock, when the 500 series was 2x

 

GF100/GF110 has a bottleneck that prevents it from outputting more than 2 pixels per clock per SM. Since GF110 has only 16 SMs, it cannot output more than 32 pixels per clock. Therefore, 16 of its ROPs are essentially useless. Also, the 680 has 3x the SPs of the 580, not 2x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GF100/GF110 has a bottleneck that prevents it from outputting more than 2 pixels per clock per SM. Since GF110 has only 16 SMs, it cannot output more than 32 pixels per clock. Therefore, 16 of its ROPs are essentially useless. Also, the 680 has 3x the SPs of the 580, not 2x.

 

You're right, it's a 3x factor in the SP count, not 2x. And I had no idea about that bug, thanks for the info. I want to clarify once again I have no idea weather the 600 series are better or worse in FSX either, and I appreciate the reports from you guys who own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the 670 has a 320-bit bus; whereas the 680 has only a 256-bit bus. If I remember correctly, the width of the bus matters in FSX. Id be interested in others' thoughts on this issue.

 

RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the 670 has a 320-bit bus; whereas the 680 has only a 256-bit bus. If I remember correctly, the width of the bus matters in FSX. Id be interested in others' thoughts on this issue.

 

RH

 

Both the 670 & the 680 have a 256b memory bus Robbie.

The 580 has a 384b bus, but the memory clock is lower (2GHz vs 3GHz in the 600 series) so the theoretical bandwidth is virtually the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the 680's become available again, I am going to use the EVGA stepup program. I am extremely eager to see how the 680 performs. - We are decently confident that it performs equivalent to the 580 so I have nothing to loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...