Welcome to techngaming.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.Login to Account Create an Account
Today we will be taking a look at the new GeForce GTX 680 graphics card, NVIDIA's latest flagship. The model we have is a reference card from EVGA, which we will be comparing to AMD's top GPU the Radeon HD 7970 and their previous offering the HD 6970. In this review we will also be performing the tests on AMD's current top end CPU and motherboard platform, which you can find more details of later on in the review.
With the arrival of the GeForce GTX 680 comes a new architecture, codenamed Kepler, which replaces the Fermi architecture of NVIDIA's two previous generations of cards, the 400 and 500 series. You can see the specifications of the new card below, alongside the other two cards we will be comparing with plus NVIDIA's previous offering the GTX 580:

Here is a screenshot of GPU-Z showing the properties of the card:

One new technology that the GTX 680 brings is called GPU Boost, this works much like the Turbo boost features on the latest Intel and AMD CPUs. A base clock is set, in the GTX 680's case this is 1006MHz, but most cards are capable of exceeding this in reasonable conditions and so the card will automatically overclock itself if it has enough headroom in terms of temperature and power draw. You can see this in the GPU-Z screenshot below, note the top line shows that during the render test, the card (and drivers) have automatically overclocked the card from the base clock of 1006 MHz, up to 1123.5 MHz. NVIDIA specify that there will be an average boost clock of 1058 MHz, to achieve this the vcore is also increased, which will increase heat output, so the card may clock back down again if it runs out of TDP (thermal design power) headroom.

On the next page of our review we will take a look at EVGA's product packaging!
With the arrival of the GeForce GTX 680 comes a new architecture, codenamed Kepler, which replaces the Fermi architecture of NVIDIA's two previous generations of cards, the 400 and 500 series. You can see the specifications of the new card below, alongside the other two cards we will be comparing with plus NVIDIA's previous offering the GTX 580:

Here is a screenshot of GPU-Z showing the properties of the card:

One new technology that the GTX 680 brings is called GPU Boost, this works much like the Turbo boost features on the latest Intel and AMD CPUs. A base clock is set, in the GTX 680's case this is 1006MHz, but most cards are capable of exceeding this in reasonable conditions and so the card will automatically overclock itself if it has enough headroom in terms of temperature and power draw. You can see this in the GPU-Z screenshot below, note the top line shows that during the render test, the card (and drivers) have automatically overclocked the card from the base clock of 1006 MHz, up to 1123.5 MHz. NVIDIA specify that there will be an average boost clock of 1058 MHz, to achieve this the vcore is also increased, which will increase heat output, so the card may clock back down again if it runs out of TDP (thermal design power) headroom.

On the next page of our review we will take a look at EVGA's product packaging!




Sign In
Create Account














9 Comments
I'd certainly like to have one, but I want the daddy GK110 which will be seriously faster than my GTX 580, so I'm gonna wait for that.
Even though a cartel lawsuit failed a while back against AMD & NVIDIA, you can feel when companies are doing it, because there are too many coincidences one after the other and the prices stay too high for it to all be just chance.
Despite all this, the 680 in absolute terms is a great card, even if NVIDIA held its performance back somewhat and upmarketed a lower GPU. Thing is, it's only 16% faster than my 580 and that's nowhere near enough an improvement to justify another £400 upgrade. But then again...
As these are personal cards, the AMD ones have been moved, so I have been stuck with whatever I had tested before. I would have liked more comparisons.
With that said, I am happy to do some general performance testing on it, if anyone wants to let me know what they would like to see for the follow-up review.