In preparation for Planetside 2, I'm looking to swap out my GTX295. The reason being that the 295 is mostly on par with 680 except for a much better Textel rate and a small loss in memory bandwidth. (Yup...) I would be content to stick with the 295 for a bit more, except that this is the second one I've had (which was a feat in itself since they're kind of hard to come by). The first one fried for some unknown reason after about a year, and I thought at first it was the solders coming loose from overheating, but I've been monitoring this one very closely and it never gets over 80*. But I'll occasionally get visual oddities and rare hardlocks that are related to resolution changes when switching from games to windows. I'm not quite ready to drop a grand on a 690, so I figured I'd see how the 680's are as far as reliability and such.

Thanks!

I think Tested might be more helpful, you should go ask there. They probably reviewed it also.

short answer, 680 is an upgrade, a significant one. 295 was a nice dual gpu card and was able to keep up with a 580. But the 680 is just a full upgrade all around in terms of raw performance and energy conservation.

@zudthespud said:

I think Tested might be more helpful, you should go ask there. They probably reviewed it also.

Indeed, Jamie and Adam's website is far more suited for this stuff.

I usually go to Tomshardwareguide for stuff like this. Helped me choose between the 6950, 560 and 570 last time.

295 is not on par with the 680 (it's closer to a 570 actually), and a 670 would most definitely NOT be a downgrade. Both the 670 and 680 are better cards than the 295 in more ways than one, so either one would be a good upgrade (naturally, the 680 more so than the 670).

GTX-670 would stomp all over a GTX-295. No idea what you're talking about in regards to a GTX-295 being mostly on par with a GTX-680. The GTX-295 in terms of raw performance was around the same speed as a GTX-570.

GTX-670 will be a worth upgrade from a GTX-295. It'll be faster (depending on your CPU and the game expect a 50% increase in frames), it'll run cooler (reference model cooler will sit around 30°C idle and 65°C under load) and it will use MUCH less power.

Remember you are buying the first gen of a new architecture.

i'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the 295 was on par with the 680 or 670, I'm asking cause you need to stop doing what ever you did unless you want to throw money the drain.

you need to look at actual game benchmarks a.k.a. real world performance.

i'm guessing you took the two spec sheets and compared them, and thats something you cant do unfortunately, since they fall extremely short of highlighting all the properties of the cards.

@Devildoll:

Well, mostly this, and the fact that I've been able to run every new release I throw at it with max settings without any issues at 60fps+ and no screen tearing. Christ, I wasn't shitting on the 680, guys. I said I was going to buy one in my OP lol Just the standard benchmarks make it look comparable and aside from the occasional graphical glitch, the 295 hasn't shown any age at all on my system.

Thanks for the advice I guess?...

@Grimhild: ah, i see. and like it says just below the green bars on that page.

Please note that the above 'benchmarks' are all just theoretical - the results were calculated based on the card's specifications, and real-world performance may (and probably will) vary at least a bit.

dont take it personal, people just got surprised by your second sentence in the op, thats all ;)

if you want to compare graphics cards in the future, i'd reccomend techpowerup they do great comparisons, both on individual titles, but they also do a performance summary.

check this out for the gtx 680.

and use the GTX 480 or 570 value as a substitute for your own 295.

680 seems to be about 42% faster on average.

@Devildoll:

Sweet, thanks.

680 has so many impressive benchmarks floating around. I'm about to do a build in the next month and I'm going with a gigabyte with three fans that is supposed to be mad quiet and is one of the higher clocked cards available.

Only odd thing is benchmarks so far point at 4GB cards offering next to no benefit even at high resolutions and AA settings, which is a bit of a bummer but eh.

Generally, newer cards are always faster. They use new architecture, new tricks and techniques, and are more efficient. The 600 series in particular is a jump up from pretty much any past gen card. Especially when you're talking about a DX10 card, which won't even support features in many of the current games, or will perform worse in other cases. You'll see a big boost in DX11 games, and the games will just look better, in most cases.

I'd also like to note that you mention resolution changes between games and windows. Are you not running native resolution? Cause, I'd say that's a pretty important thing to note concerning your upgrade. Because if you aren't running native for your games now, you'll be able to do that and still get the same/better performance.

And also, one thing you might be enjoying is a much much more efficient, and quiet card. Honestly, I don't know much about the 295, but if people are comparing it to the 570 I'm guessing if you get a good 680 card, you'll be pretty pleased with the efficiency. It's one of the biggest selling points for me, because my current rig is so loud I can barely even hear my speakers over it. Next rig is going to involve much nicer speakers and super expensive audiophile headphones so I'm looking to minimize invasive sounds.

It's an easy sell for me because I am currently running an ailing 5770 in this rig and it's a piece of shit, both the hardware and the driver/support from AMD. And it's loud as all hell, which is why I went for the Kepler with the best power to noise ratio, from what my research could dig up. And my card overheating and making my screen go funny colors isn't much fun. Nor is all of the incompatibility springing up, even in non DX10/DX11 games. Hell, I can't play UE3 games without my shadows being a bunch of artifacts. All of the reviews on Newegg (a great place to look for reviews from real owners, by the way) have been very positive in just about every way.

@zudthespud said:

I think Tested might be more helpful, you should go ask there. They probably reviewed it also.

Nope, they were a little pre-occupied at the launch and still don't have anywhere to do the testing. Plus, there are much better places for reviews on GPUs. Tom's Hardware, places like that do really in depth with a lot of different benchmarks.

@Grimhild: I'd recommend the 670gtx, or waiting until the "7" series. The 670gtx will crush your current card in every possible way, and the 680gtx hasn't justified the extra $100 with its performance.

The GTX 680 is what EPIC uses to show there unreal engine 4 tech demos they only need 1 of them. in other words they would only use the fastest to show it to room of people they are selling there engine to.

Just get the 680 its only $100 more and $100 is cheep. and get 2 4gb 680gtx in SLI is a better deal than a 690 GTX,. you would have the same 2 GPUs and 8gb of RAM rather than 4gb on the 690 you can also add another gtx 680 at any time when they are cheeper.

OH and the demo running on this getx 680 is this one and the demos at e3.

The kelper GTX680 is a gpU that will last a few years into the future you will want that speed in the future.

@Cubical: You realize that you could just overclock a 670gtx and it would be as fast as a stock 680gtx? And if we're discussing the value of $100, you could take that money and get better/more ram to improve performance even further. Or pocket the $100 and you're that much closer to a new CPU. Cheap is relative, but value proposition is not.

I'm running SLI 680's and the performance is beastly. Considering the GTX295 was essentially a pair for GTX260's on a single PCB a 680 is an enormous upgrade. That being said the GTX670 will give you close to the same performance for less.

@stenchlord said:

GTX-670 would stomp all over a GTX-295. No idea what you're talking about in regards to a GTX-295 being mostly on par with a GTX-680. The GTX-295 in terms of raw performance was around the same speed as a GTX-570.

GTX-670 will be a worth upgrade from a GTX-295. It'll be faster (depending on your CPU and the game expect a 50% increase in frames), it'll run cooler (reference model cooler will sit around 30°C idle and 65°C under load) and it will use MUCH less power.

Man, my GTX 570 runs at around 45 C idle.... well, with the internet.

@Korwin said:

I'm running SLI 680's and the performance is beastly. Considering the GTX295 was essentially a pair for GTX260's on a single PCB a 680 is an enormous upgrade. That being said the GTX670 will give you close to the same performance for less.

$100 is more than enough for an SSD which will improve day to day tasks and make general computing faster and more responsive. I agree with going the GTX-670 but having said that I got one myself, I put my money where my mouth is lol.

@Barrock said:

@stenchlord said:

GTX-670 would stomp all over a GTX-295. No idea what you're talking about in regards to a GTX-295 being mostly on par with a GTX-680. The GTX-295 in terms of raw performance was around the same speed as a GTX-570.

GTX-670 will be a worth upgrade from a GTX-295. It'll be faster (depending on your CPU and the game expect a 50% increase in frames), it'll run cooler (reference model cooler will sit around 30°C idle and 65°C under load) and it will use MUCH less power.

Man, my GTX 570 runs at around 45 C idle.... well, with the internet.

GTX-570 is a great card and still a powerhouse. Long as you aren't running 2560x1440 you should still be able to get solid FPS in pretty much every game on the market. As for your temps just up the fan speed a little, go up in 2% increments and find the right balance between acoustics and temps.

the little brother to the flagship is always going to be better value.

when you buy top of the line, all those $ arn't going towards performance, some of it goes towards your e-peen.

@MordeaniisChaos: i dont find that odd, 4 GB is just an excessive amount of memory. for single card use, its just wasted. since the card itself isn't powerful enough to crank out playable framerate in situations where 4GB's would be needed.

if you are planning on buying 2 or 3 or even 4 cards however, that extra frame-buffer is a more reasonable choice.

@Devildoll said:

the little brother to the flagship is always going to be better value.

when you buy top of the line, all those $ arn't going towards performance, some of it goes towards your e-peen.

@MordeaniisChaos: i dont find that odd, 4 GB is just an excessive amount of memory. for single card use, its just wasted. since the card itself isn't powerful enough to crank out playable framerate in situations where 4GB's would be needed.

if you are planning on buying 2 or 3 or even 4 cards however, that extra frame-buffer is a more reasonable choice.

Comparatively, the benchmarks were unimpressive, that's all I'm saying. Not denying that 4GB cards are more geared for SLI.

I'd also like to say that you're sort of right about the top of the line card, the 670 is fantastic and the 680 is a good bit more, but if you want to push games like Witcher 2 or Metro 2033, all of the extra power you can get is always going to be welcome. Those are both games I haven't put a lot of time into for the very reason that my current rig can barely play them at 720, so it's a worthwhile upgrade for me. It really depends on your setup and the uses. I also do a lot of content creation and most of the stuff I use for that has GPU acceleration now so I'll take all the power I can get when we're talking about rendering 3D and all that. It isn't just for bragging rights, sometimes you are willing to spend that extra money because it gives a needed boost. Every little bit counts with render times upwards of 12 hours, or games like Witcher 2 and Metro that are pretty poorly optimized and/or gorgeous. And if you care about your card lasting as long as possible.

@Grimhild I think you'll see improvement even with a 670. I'm quite happy wig my 680, but since I only game at 1080 on one screen a 670 would have served me just fine, I just got the 680 before the 670 was announced. That being said. Check out the nvidia forums on the 600 series cards. There is a severe issue with stuttering that they say they have a driver fix for due to come out in June (hopefully). It is hardly noticeable on my card, others have video proof of greater issues. Just a heads up so you know all the facts.

@Devildoll:

Little different this gen compared to last. Last gen there was a 20-25% increase in performance going from the GTX-570 to the GTX-580. This gen there's a 5-10% increase in performance between the GTX-670 and the GTX-680.

This is with reference cards of course.

@MordeaniisChaos: But why spend $100 to get a minimal performance increase in your GPU when you can A: Overclock and get it for free. B: Use the difference in cash to get even more performance out of your system via another more cost-efficient upgrade.

@MordeaniisChaos: But why spend $100 to get a minimal performance increase in your GPU when you can A: Overclock and get it for free. B: Use the difference in cash to get even more performance out of your system via another more cost-efficient upgrade.

@Jace: @Paliv: You do realize that not only are flagship top of the line cards capable of overclocking as well, but they are usually better at it? And sometimes there isn't any other upgrade. My rig is going to have 32GB of RAM, and pretty much the best CPU money can buy short of going up $700 and using an already useless socket type.

I hate that "well you can just overclock the other one to make it even closer" argument. Because you can overclock the bigger card more than you can probably do with the step down, making the whole fucking point moot.

And again, it's a matter of perspective. A 3% boost isn't much when you're talking about 60 frames per second, because 3% faster per frame isn't much. But when those frames come about 60 a day, it's a little different. My uses are a little different than the average, granted, but I still think the upgrade is worth while if you don't already have a bottlenecked system or the money to spend on it. I mean seriously, what am I going to do with that $100 dollars? Buy a soundcard?

Yes, if you're trying to save money, or if you're just throwing a 600 series into an older PC to keep it fresh, you can get away with a 670. But I'm not looking for second best, I'm looking for every advantage I can get.

Also, to overclock enough to bring a 670 up to 680 levels, even stock 680 levels (which most cards, including mine, are not) you'll probably want some extra cooling on that bad boy, which will cost you, so it's hardly free. Less expensive than the upgrade path, sure, but still.

@Paliv:

Thanks! That was mainly what I was wondering about, not so much the performance increase. I think I already have that stuttering issue with my current card. At first I thought it was multitasking with Skype, media players, steam, and open games. But it still does it occasionally even when I'm just browsing. The other weird issue is that I'll get a series of small, white blocks that appear across the screen in a sparse, semi-diagonal pattern for a single frame. This has happened across games that use different engines, as well, like ME3, Diablo 3, Skyrim and SR3. So, yeah, just want to get a good, new card before this one explodes lol

@MordeaniisChaos: No, the point is not "fucking moot" because even though you can overclock the 680gtx, you're paying $100 more to do that. And with that $100, you could get more performance out of different parts. Now in your case, you have the best machine on this side of the galaxy. Great, I'm happy for you. Sadly, your personal situation is irrelevant, and doesn't change the fact that under any other circumstance it's an inefficient way to spend money.

"You need extra cooling to overclock the 670gtx."

Never mind, disregard everything I said. This was a waste of time. Grimhild, listen to Chaos. He's a genius.

@Jace said:

@Cubical: You realize that you could just overclock a 670gtx and it would be as fast as a stock 680gtx? And if we're discussing the value of $100, you could take that money and get better/more ram to improve performance even further. Or pocket the $100 and you're that much closer to a new CPU. Cheap is relative, but value proposition is not.

Well you can be cheep and get one of those I will be over clocking 2 680gtx 4gb or higher than that 670gtx on my x79 platform oh wait I already am and have been for about 2 weeks.

if the dude gets White blocks and gpu errors already that means his GPU is not being cooled fast enough and if it is not cool you cant over clock anyway since his case cooling sucks the hotter it gets the more there will be until it locks up or looks like this.

I almost bought one today, but instead I donated the money to an NPO who supports children in Africa who have lost their parents to AIDS.

@Jace: I didn't say it was the right choice for everyone, at ALL. In fact the first fuckin thing I said was that it DEPENDS ON YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES. For me, I do need a lot of power. The only way I can get more power is by getting more power for the thigns I need that much power for are by spending a shit ton on quadros and a whole seperate rendering machine. So yes, it may not be effecient in terms of money to power, it is still worthwhile, and when money is worth being spent, it's not a waste, and it's not innefecient to spend that money because like it or not, there will be an increase in power. Your point was that overclocking one card would give you the other card. That's untrue. Because the onter one can ALSO be overclocked. That isn't subjective pal, that's a fact. When you overclock one, you have to overclock the other to make a fair comparison. That would be like saying that because a GTX 680 costs 10,000,000 yen it's a waste of money compared to the $400 of a GTX 670.

I never said "YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS BUY THE BETTER CARD." And you're acting like I did. What I said is that if it's power that you need, it isn't inefficient, and if you are buying a 680, you should have a machine that won't be made much better by putting $100 towards something else.

There is no absolute answer to this. You are acting as if I gave one, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm feeling a little "fuck you" right now.

In short: pure performance to money value, the 670 wins. Real life value varies because money and power are not the only fucking variables, you stupid twat.

Also, no, I didn't say you need extra cooling to overclock the 670. But to do it in a stable and safe manner that won't degrade your components at an above average rate, and that puts it's benchmarks at the 680's scores, you will probably need aftermarket cooling. Obviously tweaking the numbers a bit won't require more cooling. But you aren't going to, as far as I know, be able to get the performance up to 680 levels without at least a cheap upgrade to cooling or a very cool case, because even though it'l run, to considering it a value added modification, it can't reduce the fucking lifetime of the component. Which pumping up the 670 to perform at least as well as the 680 in all cases, you'll likely end up doing in this apparently cheap value machine you seem to think that people are putting $550 video cards in. I can overclock my piece of shit dieing 5770 right now, and not only will I barely see a performance improvement, but it'll also just end up running hotter, overheating, and my computer locks. Hardly the kind of thing I'd call "valuable", ya know? Serious overclocking, the kind that see's actual performance upgrades, usually requires aftermarket cooling, even if only cheap aftermarket cooling. Which changes the price difference.

@Grimhild: I can't play Skyrim at max resolution without my image turning into a magical land of weird white artifacts. When you start to see those, it means it's time to get a new card. Another good one is when your screen just turns a solid color. Artifacting is almost always a result of heat, either your card is over-heating or has been degraded over time by heat. Or rather, both. Now, that said, your card could keep functioning for quite some time. Could be just that your older card runs into issues rendering newer games, or it could be actual degradation/damage from heat. I've had both on this card.

It should also be noted that early cards often have driver issues, hence the stuttering and whatnot. Especially when most games aren't built to work with them, you'll notice a bit of jank here and there with a very new card like a 680 but usually those iron out relatively quickly.

Either a 670 or a 680 will be awesome for you. It'll support nweer features, give you much better performance, and it'll not be a burnt husk.

@MordeaniisChaos:

It's not so much objects or textures in game that's doing it. It's like an overlay of said diagonal pattern, which is hardly noticeable since it's just for a like a tenth of a second. Even when I'm using the Creation Kit for Skyrim it will some times happen, but only in the box where the world is being rendered. It's weird. And I haven't had the solid color issue yet. Like I said in my OP, I was worried about possible overheating, but the card never gets over 80*, and it's usually around 77* with an idle of 75*. So I dunno. I'll probably order it next week.... or when I get my Planetside 2 beta access... which ever comes first. AHHH SO ESS'ITED!

@Barrock said:

@stenchlord said:

GTX-670 would stomp all over a GTX-295. No idea what you're talking about in regards to a GTX-295 being mostly on par with a GTX-680. The GTX-295 in terms of raw performance was around the same speed as a GTX-570.

GTX-670 will be a worth upgrade from a GTX-295. It'll be faster (depending on your CPU and the game expect a 50% increase in frames), it'll run cooler (reference model cooler will sit around 30°C idle and 65°C under load) and it will use MUCH less power.

Man, my GTX 570 runs at around 45 C idle.... well, with the internet.

GTX-570 is a great card and still a powerhouse. Long as you aren't running 2560x1440 you should still be able to get solid FPS in pretty much every game on the market. As for your temps just up the fan speed a little, go up in 2% increments and find the right balance between acoustics and temps.

@Grimhild: Yup, that's the artifacting doomsday sign alright. It's not pretty. It doesn't have to be over-heating, it could just be that your card is old enough that it's degraded and is dying. Sort of like AIs in Halo only last 7 years before they go crazy, no matter what.

@MordeaniisChaos: I just got called a stupid twat by someone who thinks you need extra cooling to overclock a 670gtx. GG.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/14/geforce_680_670_vs_radeon_7970_7950_gaming_perf/3

OH and 4gb is only wasted if you play crap console noob ports of games on PC. on real and new PC games or 3d studio max or Maya I have no problem filling 4 GB of ram on 1 card and any other game in the near future will have no problem.

Not everybody uses these GPUS to play DX9 level games. it is a cheeper version of the $1000 quatro and firegl GPUS that cost $1000 percard and have 12GB of ram. 2 of these almost does the job and I can do pixar level rendering at home and i can view tons of crap made out of millions of polygons in the viewport with these cards. only studios buy 2 workstation level cards everybody else can get by on game GPUS.

Think its too much then buy one of the puny little 2gb cards the 4gb models are not for you its for this and any other future PC game that will need it at max detail levels at high res.

@Jace: You were just called a stupid twat because you STILL can't get it through your head that that isn't what I said ;) Good day and have a good life kid.

@Cubical: You realize that you could just overclock a 670gtx and it would be as fast as a stock 680gtx? And if we're discussing the value of $100, you could take that money and get better/more ram to improve performance even further. Or pocket the $100 and you're that much closer to a new CPU. Cheap is relative, but value proposition is not.

According to my cousin (owner), the 680 is an absolute beast and quite stable. Power consumption is fairly low all things considered, and it should last you quite awhile. I'm thinking about getting it later this year, that or 2 560's.

Newegg is selling the Evga 670 FTW for $420 (link).

I'll probably upgrade to a 670 later in the year once the prices drop a bit and newer revisions come out, I try to avoid first revisions of new hardware. And sell my 570 to help offset he cost.

I bought a Raedon 6950 about 5 months ago and its still siting in the box. My 4850 that is still in my pc still has no problem handling the games im playing at 1980x1200.

@MonetaryDread: And 5/10 FPS should not be worth $100 to anyone with a brain. Obviously this excludes @MordeaniisChaos

Here I was expecting this post to get buried, asking for tech advice. Never underestimate the POWAH of technobable debates!

EDIT: So what if I get the happy medium of a 670 4gig? I know someone was saying that it's only for crappy ports. Well Rockstar has a pretty good history of bad ports so maybe that'll come in handy? Hmmmmm? It's in my cart right now.

EDIT EDIT: I guess I should also mention I'm running an i7 975 @ 3.33GHz if that has any baring on it at all.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: F*ck it. I'm buying it.

@Grimhild:

The 4GB model is kinda pointless unless you're running a multi-monitor setup. The 2GB will be more than enough for anything 2560x1440 and under but if you currently run a 1080p montior and intend on buying more then the 4GB will be great.

As for what @MordeaniisChaos has been saying, I get it. I think it's pretty reasonable what he's saying but I think everyone is just getting a little too hyped up.

If you're the type of person who chases the synthetic benchmark points, overclocks all his/her components and has the money then the GTX-680 should be a no brainer for you. For the majority of the general userbase, a GTX-670 is what you should be looking at. The majority of users out there don't know how to or have no interest in overclocking so the GTX-670 is going to be the better buy.

Better put this way, by the time the GTX-670 can no longer perform in games, the GTX-680 will likely be in the same spot.

@stenchlord:

Actually I am hehe So yay!

EDIT: I'm looking forward to actually playing Planetside 2 on my flatscreen while having the global map and statistics on my smaller monitor.

Did I mention I'm getting Planetside 2, and very excited for it?

@Grimhild:

Enjoy your new card :)

You'll be very happy with how your PC performs, if you're interested you should look into overclocking. If you're running an i7 975 that poor CPU dies a little inside each second it's not being overclocked :P

I would help but mine has yet to come in. Been about a month and a half.

ThanksNVIDIA.

@Knetic2341:

No help needed, my good man! It's already ordered as of 21 minutes ago and shall be here by Friday. Also, might I add, your resplendent user portrait makes me giggle! I'm also a little tipsy. Why am I typing with an English inflection? No idea.

@Grimhild said:

Here I was expecting this post to get buried, asking for tech advice. Never underestimate the POWAH of technobable debates!

EDIT: So what if I get the happy medium of a 670 4gig? I know someone was saying that it's only for crappy ports. Well Rockstar has a pretty good history of bad ports so maybe that'll come in handy? Hmmmmm? It's in my cart right now.

EDIT EDIT: I guess I should also mention I'm running an i7 975 @ 3.33GHz if that has any baring on it at all.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: F*ck it. I'm buying it.

What 680 did you end up going with?

I'm in the middle of building mine right now and the only 600 series Nvidia card I can find that looks interesting is the EVGA 670 GTX FTW for $420.

I missed the boat on the Asus 670's and I can't find any 680 online that isn't marked up by over a hundred bucks.

@Doctorchimp:

I opted for the 670 4gig you cited in that qoute, instead. The EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SuperClocked 4096MB GDDR5, 2x Dual-Link DVI, HDMI, DP, 4-Way SLI Ready Graphics Card

O_O

/trumpetsconfetti

I just copy and pasted that from my amazon order and that's how came out. It's funny so I'll leave it. It ended up being a total of $484.99 with shipping. And since I'm running a multi monitor set up, apparently, all that ram will be put to good use. Skim the rest of the thread. Very informative technobable.

EDIT: Aw damn it went away when I posted... one second.

EDIT EDIT: There, it was in huge fonts before. lol