backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on May 14 at 12:33 AM

Card outperform an $80 more expensive AMD GPU in power, gaming, and noise

Today NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) announced the third performance addition to its new Kepler family of 28 nm GPUs (the 600 Series).  Many were writing NVIDIA off when Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) beat it to the market, dropping Graphics Core Next (GCN) on the market in January and then fleshing its lineup out in following months.  

I. Well-Positioned, Strong Performer

While AMD likely did gain from the head start, NVIDIA is ready to respond.  Not only did the GeForce GTX 680 decimate AMD in single-card performance, but now the GeForce GTX 670 has arrived to go toe-to-toe with the Radeon HD 7950 -- AMD's similar price offering -- and pull into a rough tie with the Radeon HD 7970, a card which commands $80 USD more today.  When you throw in NVIDIA's GPU computing (CUDA) lead, it's in an excellent buy.
GeForce 670
[Image Source: NVIDIA]

To be clear, an AMD price cut is all but certain.  Diamond's card already dropped to $450 USD (still $50 USD more than the GTX 670) on Newegg.com, and PowerCooler trimmed $20 off the MSRP.  More cuts will likely follow in days to come.

But NVIDIA has certainly thrown down the gauntlet with its latest launch and will all but surely see strong sales.

GeForce 670
The GeForce 670, decloathed. [Image Source: AnandTech]

If there's a weakness to be said for the Kepler lineup it's that the company is still missing a low-to-mid range option, say a $300-$340 USD GeForce GTX 660.  There's the ultra-high GeForce GTX 690 -- a dual-GPU card that launched at the end of April, there's the $500 flagship GTX 680, the high-end single die solution, and there's the new GTX 670.  But the 28 nm Kepler GK104 does not reach lower than $400 USD -- yet.

NVIDIA does have some other, lower end, GeForce 600 series cards that are shipping to OEMs, built on the general Kepler format -- GK107, GK114, GK116, and GK119.  But these aren't mass market cards and they're built on a 40 nm process and thus are bound to not enjoy as great power and temperature performance as their 28 nm kin.

II. Specs

That's the basic situation now let's look at the specs.

General1 2
(Click to enlarge)
General table
(1 "Real world" Power, Noise, and Temperature levels taken courtesy of AnandTech)
(2 Both GPUs are produced
 on processes by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Comp., Ltd. (TPE:2330).)

Cores
(Click to enlarge)Cores

Memory
(Click to enlarge)Cores

Well, the specs paint a pretty clear picture.  The NVIDIA card is an exercise in efffciency -- it grows the transistor count much less than AMD and is quieter.  It also holds a substantial lead in power during stressful scenarios like HD gaming. But even comparing to AMD, NVIDIA still arguably earns a win in these metrics.  The AMD cards are a tiny bit warmer, but they're decibels louder (and remember, decibels are a logarithmic scale).

III. Conclusions

What's there to say about the GeForce GTX 670?  It's a bit tardy, but now that it's here, it brings the heat and is priced to kill.  It would be nice to see AMD get very aggressive in pricing to keep a step ahead of NVIDIA, but there are no guarantees.

If you want to dig more into individual game performance (AnandTech labels it as 80-120% of the Radeon HD 7970 in performance in assorted games), overclocking, or SLI, read the following reviews:

In-Depth (gaming + compute + overclocking) Basic (gaming + overclocking) Again, the GTX 670 is one mean machine and the perfect item for a gamer with a slightly higher budget, for whom the GTX 680 was a tad to rich for their blood.

NVIDIA earns a hearty congratulations for playing comeback kid and wowing with Kepler.  As we said with AMD's head-start, though, much depends on supply.  It is crucial that NVIDIA deliver sufficient shipments.  Fortunately, NVIDIA typically seems a bit ahead of the supply curve vs. AMD.  So expect it to be in good shape, with mid-range to ultra-high end monopolized by GK104 for now.

Sources: NVIDIA, AnandTech



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Maybe it's just me, but...
By NellyFromMA on 5/10/2012 9:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 460 GTX 1 gb and I really can't imagine why I'll need to upgrade for a good long while. Maybe the next gen of console's will somehow push PC game devs to push the boundaries further than they are.

I don't really think so though since the rumor is the next Xbox will have comparable graphics to my GPU, which probably means the market will just flood with PC ports with graphics that my GPU will likely handle fine.

To me, it seems like you can sit back a couple of GPU generations these days and not miss much. Especially seeing how long PC dev's took too venturing much further passed the 360s graphical capabilities.




RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By someguy123 on 5/10/2012 10:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
460 is a great card for the money, but you're talking sub60 fps in a bunch of games, even back when the 460 launched.

If you can deal with low fps I guess it's fine, but clearly you could do better unless you're playing low demanding games like left 4 dead or something, or playing at sub 1080 resolutions.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 1:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
Display resolution is the main reason. The only reason I have a fast card is that I play on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor. If I played 1080p then I could get away with much less.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By WalksTheWalk on 5/11/2012 10:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
Considering there really isn't much software out there that can really push these cards, I just don't see PC gaming as that big of a thing anymore in relation to graphics. To me, graphics are at the point where the latest and greatest are just minor iterations over the last generation.

The incentive doesn't seem to be there for game publishers to push the PC much past what the current generation of consoles can do.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By bug77 on 5/11/2012 10:57:12 AM , Rating: 4
I think you got it backwards.

It's the publishers/developers that find it cheaper to pass crappy console ports as PC games, hence the lessened need for more performance. But you still need performance if you want to play at a higher resolution, for example.

And about "minor iterations", you're wrong again. This newly released 670 uses about as much power as a 470, yet offers almost twice the performance. AMD's cards are in the same boat. That's not minor.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By someguy123 on 5/11/2012 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think people are just looking for a reason to complain. Everyone talks about how we're held back because of how good crysis looked in 07 compared to games now, but that's a single game, and in 08 I had two 8800GTXs and I could still barely run the damn thing.

Nowadays your average game looks decent, and you still have a bunch of games pushing your hardware like the witcher, metro, stalker, AVP, arkham city, total war shogun, alan wake, hell even the crysis games still struggle on what is basically their 07 engine with some modifications. I don't really know what people are expecting when they complain that we haven't achieved some sort of mirror into reality.


By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think people are just looking for a reason to complain.


Pretty much.

I'm frankly surprised at the complaints here. I figured that this would be a place for hardware enthusiasts, but I guess its mainly for people who are cheap.

In any case, people who are complaining about the price are ignoring the fact that $400+ cards are for big displays or multimonitor gaming. It more than likely isn't for them. Nobody is forcing them to spend more than the $200-$250 in order to get good framerates and image quality on a 1080p display.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 4:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the publishers/developers that find it cheaper to pass crappy console ports as PC games, hence the lessened need for more performance.


The lowered ceiling from console games and their ports is one thing. The other thing to consider is that the most successful PC developers target the widest range of hardware that they can.

Valve and Blizzard put much more emphasis on the art in their games than they do the underlying technology in the game engine. The result is great looking games that can run well on inexpensive computers, older computers, and even low powered laptops (Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 run surprisingly well even on a Macbook Air or other ultrabook).

It makes sense, why limit your audience to a niche with the fastest hardware? Just look what happened with Crysis. It isn't like 1999 where people would buy new video cards in droves in order to play Quake 3. Developers can't do that anymore and expect blockbuster sales.

Valve and Blizzard also have access to detailed metrics of the hardware that their customers use, leading to informed choices with their game engines and target specs.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Console ports are one factor, but the median hardware specs of customers is another one.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By bug77 on 5/11/2012 8:08:06 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not going to argue with that.

It's just that proper PC games used to have settings. You could make them look beautiful or tone them down so they ran on less powerful hardware. A crappy console port will not have settings and will target the lowest denominator, like you said. That's why having an uber-card seems rather pointless today. Of course, if it's crap done right, it will both look unimpressive and run like a slideshow, but that's another discussion.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 8:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why having an uber-card seems rather pointless today.


Except that it isn't pointless. If you're in the small percentage of people with displays over 1920x1200 or doing triple monitor gaming, high end cards are necessary for stable framerates over 60fps. I game at 2560x1440 so I need more horsepower than what a $250 card can give, even for some console ports (Batman: Arkham City comes to mind).

I freely admit that I'm in a niche, but I also can't say that higher end cards are pointless either. They just aren't for most people out there, which is fine.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By bug77 on 5/12/2012 4:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was pointless, I said it seems pointless.


RE: Maybe it's just me, but...
By bennyg on 5/12/2012 3:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
GTA 4

i.e. badly optimised console ports cannot have too much power on hand.


"midrange"
By Soulkeeper on 5/10/2012 8:14:42 PM , Rating: 5
midrange used to mean $150-$200
now it's $350-$400
incredible




RE: "midrange"
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2012 8:23:17 PM , Rating: 4
Screw that, I still consider $150 to be mid-range.


RE: "midrange"
By DBCooper71 on 5/10/2012 8:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
But consider that these cards double as room heaters too, only slightly noisier than your average heater :)


RE: "midrange"
By someguy123 on 5/10/2012 10:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
the GK cards are quite cool. where have you been?

anyway, I think this is more like a highend card rather than midrange. the 580/570 were priced similarly to the 680/670 at launch, and the 560 was what filled the gap for their midrange. Wait for the 660 if these two cards are too expensive.


RE: "midrange"
By Samus on 5/11/2012 1:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
I've never spent more than $250 on a videocard and I never will. You're all right budget $100, midrange $150-$200, high end $300 max.

This $400-$500 videocard BS has to stop. The most expensive card I ever bought was a Guillemot TNT2 Ultra, which was the fastest videocard in the world when it was released in 1999, and it cost $218. Now the highest performing single GPU card in the world is almost triple that price.

That's some hella tech inflation. Everything else has gotten cheaper, especially every other ultra-high performance type of semiconductor (chipsets, CPU's, memory, etc.

Like AMD said, these days, you can get a CPU cheaper than a CPU fan. So why the hell aren't videocards the same way?


RE: "midrange"
By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 3:50:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This $400-$500 videocard BS has to stop.


Why?

Your argument is based on the idea that you need to spend money on a high end video card in order to get a good experience. You don't, $250 is plenty for 1080p monitors, which most people have.

Where spending $400+ makes sense is for people who have higher res displays or do multimonitor gaming. Those people have already spent a good amount on 2560x1440/2560x1600 monitors or three 1080p monitors, so it follows that they spend extra to support all those extra pixels.

For the rest it isn't necessary to spend that much on a card since they don't need it, which is great. That said, I really don't see the point complaining about niche $400+ cards given that they clearly aren't for you or the majority of gamers out there.


RE: "midrange"
By Nfarce on 5/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: "midrange"
By Totally on 5/11/2012 12:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
this card will sell for that amount when it gets renamed to 750/760 ti


RE: "midrange"
By superstition on 5/14/2012 12:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
One guy created the 1975 Fairchild F8 microprocessor.

Do you think one guy can create something like Kepler?

Final Fantasy 7 had a huge development team, but Square says it's practically impossible to fund a remake with updated graphics.

As complexity increases, so can development expense.


I must be poor...
By MonkeyPaw on 5/10/2012 7:12:32 PM , Rating: 5
Since when is a $400 graphics card considered "mid-range"?




RE: I must be poor...
By StevoLincolnite on 5/10/2012 7:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
I never considered the 470, 570 or the 670 to be mid-range parts, I personally think that's relegated to the 460, 560 and 660 parts.

But hell... This generation is so over-priced. I have zero desire to upgrade from my 2x 2gb Radeon 6950's unlocked into 6970's.
Maybe next year. With sane pricing! I only spent $250 for my 6950's each, I honestly expected a larger performance increase than what we got with the move from 40nm to 28nm.


RE: I must be poor...
By spread on 5/10/2012 11:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a 6950 for $200ish and I consider that around mid range.

A $400 card being mid range? Did I miss a decade of inflation? That's messed up.


RE: I must be poor...
By tcool93 on 5/11/2012 1:45:51 AM , Rating: 4
Its because this is a 100% biased Nvidia fanboy review of a video card. Soon as he claimed that the 680 decimated the 7970, I knew this was an Nvidia fanboy article. When the truth is, the 7970 kills the 680 in several games.


RE: I must be poor...
By Nfarce on 5/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: I must be poor...
By macca007 on 5/12/2012 2:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
Since the release of the 690GTX lol
$400 card is just about budget now not midrange.
Come live where I am(Australia land of the tech rip off merchants), The new 690GTX is AU$1599 high end

680 card is AU$675 mid range

670 card is AU$479 budget


Biased review
By tcool93 on 5/11/2012 1:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
And for anyone who believes this nonsense about how supposedly great the Nvidia cards are over the AMD cards, just look at a real review at Hardware Canucks where the AMD cards easily beat the Nvidia cards in a lot of games.




RE: Biased review
By bug77 on 5/11/2012 4:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? I read that article and found:
- nvidia wins in: Batman AC, BF3, Crysis2, Dirt3 and Skyrim;
- AMD wins in: Shogun2: TW;
- undecided: DeusEx, Metro2033, Wargame(?) and The Witcher2 (fails in multi monitor test).

Power consumption in in favor of nvidia, but may be because AMD cards have 3GB VRAM - hence some of their victories at higher resolutions.

They must have removed the "AMD cards easily beat the Nvidia cards in a lot of games" part.
I think this sums it up nicely: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...

Also, for a much better comparison of cards, I recommend techpowerup.com.


RE: Biased review
By bug77 on 5/11/2012 6:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to say/write: The Witcher2 (AMD fails in multi monitor test).


Hmmm....
By swizeus on 5/10/2012 10:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
nVidia GeForce GTX570 $349, GTX670 $399, considered $100 difference ?




RE: Hmmm....
By bennyg on 5/12/2012 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
So many other errors in the graphs too. But, even if they were all correct, those graphs would still be worthless.

Who cares about stuff like theoretical peak GFLOPs or that 680 has "200% more cores" than 580. Throw some real performance numbers in there and stop wasting space.


Jason what is wrong with you?
By cknobman on 5/11/2012 10:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
I generally try to look over all the hate you get from the members of this site but you really ask for much of it. Your sensationalist articles are filled with too much tripe, opinion, dribble, and sometimes borderline lies.

quote:
Not only did the GeForce GTX 680 decimate AMD in single-card performance


While the 680 did beat the 7970 it hardly "decimated" it. In fact it was proven that AMD 7970 was loosing many times due to it lower clock on the gpu and memory and if overclocked to similar levels as the 680 it was a win some/lose some scenario. This leads many to believe that AMD will offer a higher clocked "GHZ" edition of the card.

quote:
When you throw in NVIDIA's GPU computing (CUDA) lead, it's in an excellent buy.


I am sorry but is the 600 series already proven to be a abysmal compute card??? 600 series compute power is lacking even compared to Nvidias own previous generation much less AMDs current generation.

Please, have some self respect and pride in your own work as a journalist and stop going for sensationalism!!!!




By someguy123 on 5/12/2012 12:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
Problem with nvidia's compute implementation with the 680 is that it relies completely on software. The driver side support just isn't there yet for the 680, but the hardware itself seems to still be capable if the software scheduling is there to match. Its the fastest card in direct compute tests, which is necessary for some games, leading me to believe that they launched the card at the cost of driver side optimizations for general compute.


GPU prices edging up?
By sigmatau on 5/10/2012 7:40:17 PM , Rating: 3
$400 for a midrange GPU seems a bit much.

I was hoping under $150 for low end, under $300 for mid, and whatever for the high end (probably $500 for a single gpu-core card).

These cards are a good upgrade to just about anything previous generation. This is more of a "tock" generation, and a strong one at that.




"Arrived"
By mattclary on 5/11/2012 2:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not only did the GeForce GTX 680 decimate AMD in single-card performance, but now the GeForce GTX 670 has arrived to go toe-to-toe with the Radeon HD 7950


And by "arrived", you mean we have some pretty pictures. You still can't get a 680 and it "arrived" about a month ago.




Typo
By UnauthorisedAccess on 5/10/2012 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's there to say about the GeForce GTX 670? It's a bit tardy, but now that it's hear it brings the heat and is priced to kill


Typo - fix and you can then delete this post ;)




Epic failed!
By 2bdetermine on 5/10/2012 8:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Any other price drops
By Sylar on 5/11/2012 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
So what kind of price drops can we anticipate in response at the real "mid range" level?($150-$200)

I'd like to snag a 7850 under $200, that'd be sweet.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki