Skip navigation

nVidia GTX 680 now at Newegg

Mar 21, 2012 7:07 PM

  Latest reply: Harm Millaard, Apr 7, 2012 12:34 AM
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 23, 2012 3:34 PM   in reply to John T Smith

    I was lucky enough to grab one before they sold out.  Since I was originally going to purchase the 580, is the main difference (in terms of post production) between  the two just 3x CUDA power??  In regards to AE this would help tremendously right?? But if anyone would have the time time explain any advantages in Premiiere, I would appreciate it. thanks in advance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 23, 2012 3:39 PM   in reply to StarMarc

    Technically yes more cuda cores better MPE (also 2GB ram)

     

     

     

    However the link I posted suggests it may not be..

     

    I am not lucky enough to have one yet to test with

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 23, 2012 3:43 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Scott - I am not lucky enough to have one yet to test with

     

    Well, you need to do something about that 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 23, 2012 3:53 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    Well miracle of miracles I just ordered one direct from EVGA and if they get it out tonight yet I should have it Monday.  Lets hope it beats Scott's findings

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 23, 2012 3:55 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Congrats Bill!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 24, 2012 3:44 AM   in reply to John T Smith

    Plenty for Sale here in the UK,

     

    Rumours say EVGA are bringing out a 4gb Version.

     

    Well I have ordered one, cant wait to Test the Beast.

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 24, 2012 5:34 AM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Just wondering if the GTX 690 with a single GPU, based on the GK110 and possibly a 384 bit memory bus, would not be much more interesting than this mid-range 680, that is offered for a whopping € 500. The 690 is not a dual GPU design like the 590, but the upgrade from the GK104. Let's not kid ourselves, the 680 is only a mid-level card and more alike the 560 than the 580.

     

    I hope the fuzziness will disappear shortly and we will get some tangible results. For me, I will wait with a decision about a new video card, till the offerings are a lot clearer. I mean, a mid-level card for € 500 loses its attractiveness when you can have a performance level card for € 550.

     

    I look forward to seeing the results from people like Bill, who do not hesitate to shell out large amounts to get the latest and supposedly greatest, even though only mid-level video cards. Time will tell.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 25, 2012 5:31 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    If you want an extensive article on the new NVidia line I suggest reading this BSN article.  It has made me a little more optimistic about the GTX 680 but next week sometime we will know for sure when I get mine. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 25, 2012 5:59 PM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Hi Studio North,

     

    you said you ordered one, what exactly did you order ? ... a 2 gb model ? or a 4 gb model ?  your post is a bit confusing.  I haven't seen

    anything about a 4gb out yet, but if that's the case, it's worth the wait to wait I'm guessing.  Will you be using  this on a new motherboard that

    supports the 2011 chip ? ( i7 ) ? and PCI-3 for the card to pull full potential from it ?

     

    I am wondering if going with a 680 is worth it, if I pop it into an older board, somehow I rather doubt it, that new card is pci-3 and my board is pci-2 so

    there is a big bottleneck there.  Probabally not worth it, and perhaps I'll go with the GTX-580, a saleman told me prices may drop as much as $200 on the

    card.

     

    P.S. I bought my GTX-470 about 2 years ago, - cost me $400 at the time, I saw this card for $129 a few weeks ago on a local vendor's site, however when I asked aobut it, they had not had any in stock, and the guy told me they have been discontinued for a LONG time.

     

    However this shows you just how much a card can drop in price, and just how quickly when a new card comes out.

     

    Dave.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 25, 2012 6:42 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Hi Harm,

     

    I was told the GTX 690 is a dual gpu card, not a single.  This info has been out for quite some time, so I'm a bit confused about you saying it is a single gpu card.

    This article posted just a few days ago talks a bit about the upcoming card....

    http://wccftech.com/nvidia-dual-chip-geforce-gtx-690-gpu-exposed/

     

    quote:

    The card is definitely based on two GK104 chips (the same chip was used on the GeForce GTX 680) holding 3072 Cuda Cores (1536 from each core), 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs. It holds 4 Memory chips on either sides of the PCB which equals a memory interface of 256-bit for each core. This means we would see a 4GB VRam on the board.

    It is powered by two Eight Pin connector which suggests that the TDP would be somewhere around 300W. Each core has its own 5 Phase VRM.

    The card has a single SLI gold finger which means two of the same GPU’s can be coupled together. The GPU is expected to launch in May 2012. Price is gonna be set around $799 US.

     

    end of quote.

     

    Dave.

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    Just wondering if the GTX 690 with a single GPU, based on the GK110 and possibly a 384 bit memory bus, would not be much more interesting than this mid-range 680, that is offered for a whopping € 500. The 690 is not a dual GPU design like the 590, but the upgrade from the GK104. Let's not kid ourselves, the 680 is only a mid-level card and more alike the 560 than the 580.

     

    I hope the fuzziness will disappear shortly and we will get some tangible results. For me, I will wait with a decision about a new video card, till the offerings are a lot clearer. I mean, a mid-level card for € 500 loses its attractiveness when you can have a performance level card for € 550.

     

    I look forward to seeing the results from people like Bill, who do not hesitate to shell out large amounts to get the latest and supposedly greatest, even though only mid-level video cards. Time will tell.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 1:42 AM   in reply to John T Smith

    Hi,

     

    Dave

     

    I ordered the current available 2gb Version of the GTX 680.

     

    My System spec at Present is:

     

    Asus P6T7 WS with 980x 4.2GHZ,

     

    The card has Arived this morning, will do some tests and see what it can do.

     

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 2:36 AM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Hi Baz,

     

    thanks for your help and I can't wait to see how it works. What card did you have in the machine?

     

    Dax

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 6:47 AM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Hi Baz,

     

    thanks for the clarification :-)  Nice !  btw, I was checking out your board, sweet !  Not a cheap board... $$ I have been buying ASUS boards for a long time, can't go wrong with them

    I find. 

     

    I'm looking forward to your findings !  -- and - good question Darren had, - what card did you have in your system ?  would be interesting to know, when you tell us how the 680 performs.

     

    Also, having the cpu you have, is a major step up from my very old Intel q9450 which was one of the top chips at its time.

    http://ark.intel.com/products/33923/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q9450-% 2812M-Cache-2_66-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB%29

     

    I'd love to see test results on a piece of video, using my current chip, and going up to th an i7 like you have.  All tests I've ever seen are ALWAYS for gamers,

    and it seems there's just nowhere to go to see tests for people using premiere.

     

    example:

    video 1 - 1080p AVCHD footage 2 minutes in duration.

    time to render:

    x seconds with this chip

    x seconds with this chip

    etc....

     

    you just cannot find this kind of info out there, well I've never found it.

     

    good luck with the new card ! I know we are all drooling here !

     

    Dave.

     

     

     

    I've got the 570 1280 gb version, so going up to 2 gb would be a big step for me, will wait and see what unfolds.  Nice

    Studio North wrote:

     

    Hi,

     

    Dave

     

    I ordered the current available 2gb Version of the GTX 680.

     

    My System spec at Present is:

     

    Asus P6T7 WS with 980x 4.2GHZ,

     

    The card has Arived this morning, will do some tests and see what it can do.

     

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 10:20 AM   in reply to David Zeno

    David, it evident that you have not been to PPBM5.com where you can see almost 800 real Premiere Pro benchmarks.  I have to apologize to Baz that his results are not on the current database driven site, we (actually Harm) developed quite automated way to enter results after he submitted his results.  The early results from Studio North can be seen in our older PPBM5 results page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 7:33 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hi Bill,

     

    no, I've neard heard of it, but am looking at it now.  I have to say though it's very confusing.  It would be good if there was a link to a youtube video describing all these columns on info.

     

    I don't see anywhere a field with "render time" or "elapsed render time" so I have no clue where that info is.

     

    I'm assuming that everyone rendered the same file, and these values were entered on that webiste.... but where ?  I just don't see it listed.

     

    What I'm looking for is values of the total time it took to render a file, either in minutes + seconds, or total seconds.

     

    I don't see it, am I blind ?

     

    :-(

     

    Dave.

    Bill Gehrke wrote:

     

    David, it evident that you have not been to PPBM5.com where you can see almost 800 real Premiere Pro benchmarks.  I have to apologize to Baz that his results are not on the current database driven site, we (actually Harm) developed quite automated way to enter results after he submitted his results.  The early results from Studio North can be seen in our older PPBM5 results page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 7:58 PM   in reply to David Zeno

    The file everyone downloaded is on the Benchmark Instructions page.

     

    If you look on the Benchmark Results - Test results page you can see times it took for people to run the benchmark.

     

    If you look at the rankings on the left mine is # 551

     

    It took a total of 622 seconds to complete the benchmark.  Almost 6 times slower than # 1

     

    Run the test yourself and you will know where your system stacks up to others.

     

     

    GLenn

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2012 8:22 PM   in reply to Powered by Design

    Hi Glenn 

     

    thanks for the help.  I'm just shutting down for the night but will check this out tomorrow and spend some time with it,

     

    thank again for the help !

     

    Dave.

     

     

    Powered by Design wrote:

     

    The file everyone downloaded is on the Benchmark Instructions page.

     

    If you look on the Benchmark Results - Test results page you can see times it took for people to run the benchmark.

     

    If you look at the rankings on the left mine is # 551

     

    It took a total of 622 seconds to complete the benchmark.  Almost 6 times slower than # 1

     

    Run the test yourself and you will know where your system stacks up to others.

     

     

    GLenn

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2012 4:28 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hi  Bill.

     

    Did you get your GPU?

     

    Im just wacht this.:

    Gainward GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB GDDR5Share27
    GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB

     

     

     

    Product Name  :   Gainward GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB GDDR5
    Barcode  :   4260183362494
    GPU  :   GeForce GTX 680
    GPU Clockspeed  :   1006 Mhz (base) / 1058 Mhz (boost)
    Memory  :   2048MB GDDR5 (256 bits)
    Memory Clockspeed  :   3004 Mhz
    Pixels per clock (peak)  :   N/A
    Bandwidth  :   192.3 GB/s
    Ramdac  :   400 MHz
    Bus  :   PCI-Express 3.0
    Cooling  :   2-Slot Fan cooler
    Video-Features  :   HDMI
    Connectivity  :   Dual DVI, DisplayPort
    Product Size  :   254mm x 112mm
    Power Connector  :   6-pin x2

     

     

    THIS IS CRAAAZYYY.....

    Base on how NVIDIA has made the GPU i believe that GTX 670 WILL be +mhz Clock speed and GTX660 EVEN MORE. Can´t whait... =)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2012 6:00 AM   in reply to Crist OC/PC

    Cristobal,

     

    While I ordered Friday and paid for 2 day delivery, I just missed their cut-off time for shipping.  I got the UPS confirmation and it should arrive tomorrow.

     

    Also it is now official that CS6 is coming soon.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2012 6:34 AM   in reply to Crist OC/PC

    I am very excited about the 680 too, then last night I read about Nvidia's "leak" about their new card coming in August, which is not far away.  I wonder why they do this.  So people get excited,

    go out and buy a 680 with their hard earned money, to be slapped in the face with a new card only months later.  I just don't get it.

     

    New card uses a new chip ( GK110 ) instead of the GK104 in the 680.  I thought 1536 CUDA cores was amazing, and I still do, but this card coming in August has a whopping 2304, and the

    memory will be doubled going from 256-bit DDR to 512-bit DDR.

     

    http://www.legitreviews.com/news/12673/

    http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1503034&mpage=1

     

    By the way, that's just 2 websites out of dozens and dozens who have posted this info.  Simply Google "GK110" and you'll get a huge list of websites with the info for this new "GTX 685" or whatever

    they may call it.

     

    What does this mean for Premiere ? ... I have no clue ? ... any advantage ? ... not sure...... anyway, seems Nvida can't wait to keep popping out new cards.  Perhaps for those who have money to spend,

    can just buy a 680, sell it a few months later and buy the big brother to the 680, but many of us don't, so this really makes the waters very muddy.  IF this new card comes out when planned, and it

    speeds up Premiere in ways never thought possible, then it's well worth the wait.  I guess in a way, I'm glad they "leaked" this info out, before I bought a 680.

     

    NVIDIA Kepler GK110 Approximate Specs Leaked

    The launch of NVIDIA's new range of Kepler-based graphics is almost on top of us, yet details are starting to emerge about the GK104 GPU's big brother, the GK110.

     

    It looks like NVIDIA decided to release the lower performance GK104 GPU as their upcoming top card, the GTX 680, since performance was above what they expected. This GPU would most likely have gone into a GTX 670 otherwise. It also could be due to the very large die size of the GK110 top dog chip, which is surprisingly due for launch as far away as August. The naming for this card has not been revealed, but speculation pegs it as the GTX 685, with the GTX 690 name reserved for the dual GK104 card. Leaked specifications table is below, comparing the GK110 to the GK104 and AMD's HD 7970. Note the brawny 512-bit memory bus.

    GK110 COMPARISON TABLE

    Going back to GK110, a card built in 28nm process, which will likely have 2304 CUDA cores, may have completely reorganized GPU structure. Streaming multiprocessors may rise to 10 (in comparison to GTX 680). NVIDIA could use 512-bit memory interface on this one. It is rumored that GK110 will consume around 250 Watts. Card should be prepared for August 2012. Naming is not yet revealed, but since GTX 680 is already taken, this card may be called GTX 685 (leaving GTX 690 brand for dual-gk104). It is also possible that NVIDIA will decide to release new GK110 gpu as a card from GeForce 700 series, but this would be a marketing failure as owners of GTX 680 would feel confused – having a graphics card which is a generation old after 5 months.

     

    Crist OC/PC wrote:

     

    Hi  Bill.

     

    Did you get your GPU?

     

    Im just wacht this.:

    Gainward GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB GDDR5Share27
    GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB

     

     

     

    Product Name  :   Gainward GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB GDDR5
    Barcode  :   4260183362494
    GPU  :   GeForce GTX 680
    GPU Clockspeed  :   1006 Mhz (base) / 1058 Mhz (boost)
    Memory  :   2048MB GDDR5 (256 bits)
    Memory Clockspeed  :   3004 Mhz
    Pixels per clock (peak)  :   N/A
    Bandwidth  :   192.3 GB/s
    Ramdac  :   400 MHz
    Bus  :   PCI-Express 3.0
    Cooling  :   2-Slot Fan cooler
    Video-Features  :   HDMI
    Connectivity  :   Dual DVI, DisplayPort
    Product Size  :   254mm x 112mm
    Power Connector  :   6-pin x2

     

     

    THIS IS CRAAAZYYY.....

    Base on how NVIDIA has made the GPU i believe that GTX 670 WILL be +mhz Clock speed and GTX660 EVEN MORE. Can´t whait... =)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM   in reply to John T Smith

    Update:

     

    if you want to use 4x Monitors with the same resolution across all monitors via the gtx 680 the max is 1920x1200, as The HDMI limits the Resolution as I have just found out.

     

    I have 3x 30" Monitors with DVI Ports and to run a 3rd Monitor I have to Purchase a Displayport to Dual Link Dvi Adaptor to make it work. Cost UK £90. Or to Purchase a Cheap Geforce GPU (210) for £20.

     

    Baz

     

    Also I have done a PPBM5 Benchmark and it did make a Difference compared to my 480, I will let Bill Update once he has done tests with his card, and has seen my Test Results.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 27, 2012 5:10 PM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Baz have you gotten any of my standard emails?  I have responded to your PM's via direct email.  The only way we can update the database is if you formally submit the data by using the "Submit Results" option on the home page. 

     

    Here is a reasonable but high quality Display Port to DVI adapter for only $26

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 12:46 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hi,

     

    Bill

     

    No Emails Received

     

    The Adaptor you have listed is a single link Pasive Adaptor.

     

    for large displays require a dual link active adaptor

     

    just like this one.

     

    http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-DP2DVID-DisplayPort-Active-Converte r/dp/B003AR5S5M/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1332920598&sr=8-14http://

     

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 9:25 AM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Well my GTX 680 arrived earlier than I guessed and with just one or two runs (and a couple of baseline runs with my GTX 480 the GTX 680 appears to be about 10 seconds faster on the PPBM5.5 MPEG2-DVD encoding test on my 5.0 GHz i7-2600K 32 GB RAM machine.  I just did not have enough time this morning to pull the GTX 580.  Was it worth $500 more, only time will tell but it sure was worth waiting for as my second machine has need an upgrade.  More details later.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 1:25 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hi Bill,

     

    Looking forward to seeing your full results with the PPBM5.5. 

     

    I am waiting on my GTX 680 to show up.  The tracking says it will be here Friday.

     

    Dave

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 1:48 AM   in reply to John T Smith

    Just one novice question.

    Is this card already officially supported by Adobe in CS5.5 or do I have to wait for CS6?

    I guess since you are running benchmarks already there is a way to use it with CS5.5 Premiere and/or AfterEffects.

    Is there an simpel way to make CS5.5 products to recognize and use this new card. Or might that ne a problem because

    of the new architecture (Kepler instead of Fermi)?

    Thank you for your help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to C.-D. Schulz

    "officially" ? - good question.  I just checked myself, and no it is not, however I don't think they have updated this list for a long-time.

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html

     

    Funny though, I go by a deli every day on my way to work, and THEY have the time to update their list, i.e. "soup of the day " LOL. 

    You would think Adobe could also. Kind of amazing they don't have the manpower to do so, or don't think it's important enough.

     

    This new card works with ver 5.5 though.  Officially though - as of today, March 29, 2012, no it doesn't.

     

    Dave.

     

    and yes, take my post with a smile, I'm joking a little bit here, but in reality, yes, Adobe should be on the ball a little quicker.  A note should be there

    at least letting people know that the new Nvidia cards "x, y and z" will soon be officially supported.

     

     

    C.-D. Schulz wrote:

     

    Just one novice question.

    Is this card already officially supported by Adobe in CS5.5 or do I have to wait for CS6?

    I guess since you are running benchmarks already there is a way to use it with CS5.5 Premiere and/or AfterEffects.

    Is there an simpel way to make CS5.5 products to recognize and use this new card. Or might that ne a problem because

    of the new architecture (Kepler instead of Fermi)?

    Thank you for your help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 6:38 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hi Bill,

     

    That's not the results I was expecting to hear, it will be good to see others pipe in on this when they get their cards.  I have a feeling though, in different areas this card is going to greatly outshine

    your 480.  - uh.. let's hope that's the case :-)

     

    Dave.

     

     

    Bill Gehrke wrote:

     

    Well my GTX 680 arrived earlier than I guessed and with just one or two runs (and a couple of baseline runs with my GTX 480 the GTX 680 appears to be about 10 seconds faster on the PPBM5.5 MPEG2-DVD encoding test on my 5.0 GHz i7-2600K 32 GB RAM machine.  I just did not have enough time this morning to pull the GTX 580.  Was it worth $500 more, only time will tell but it sure was worth waiting for as my second machine has need an upgrade.  More details later.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:32 AM   in reply to David Zeno

    My system:

     

    OS Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit

    Adobe Creative suite 5.5 with latest update

    Boot disk intel SSD 160 Gb sata II

    I7 980X @ 4119MHz

    Gygabyte GA-X58 UDR3

    24 Gb Kingston 1600 (9 9 9 27 36)@ 1420 (8 8 8 27 36)

    Raid 0 (2 Velociraptor 600x2)

    GTX 580

    Latest Drivers available

     

    My PPBM5 result with MPE:

    "66","51","43","5"

     

    With GTX 680

    "63","59","41","5"

    I am happy, if I consider that there is only a first drivers release for GTX 680.

     

     

     

    
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:44 AM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    Fabio

     

    your Results are slower with the 680 and you say your happy. ???

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:44 AM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    I'm not sure a driver update is going to change those numbers any.  PP isn't a video game.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 10:09 AM   in reply to Studio North Films

    Baz,

    quite similar result, and first driver release.

    I am happy because, now, I can use my monitors configuration (dell 27'', samsung 23 '' (3d vision ready) and Acer 3d projector with less pain, using a similar powerfull vga. Maybe I didn't expect so much, and I am confident in superior results with new drivers release.

     

    Jim, in my system I had not ever installed a single game.

    I use PP with both cards in the same way and for me, at this point, it is a great result (IMHO)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 11:26 AM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    You must have something wrong I am getting about 10 seconds faster MPEG2-DVD scores over my 480 and 580. What driver are you using?  At nVidia they are now at 301.10  whereas the board shipped with 300.83   Incidently this driver is not backward compatible with previous GTX's   Of course one thing I never load is the 3D and PhysX drivers.

     

    The other major problem is that your motherboard and CPU cannot take advantage of the PCIe version 3.0 capability.  Unfortunately I just found out that my Sandy Bridge motherboard (GA-Z68XP-UD4) will not do PCIe 3.0 either as it is a revision 1.0 board and you need a 1.3 revision and my i7-2600K also is not PCIe 3. capable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 12:40 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Yes Bill, I saw your results on PPBM5 and I think I have some codec or bios settings problem. Driver is the same (301.10), but maybe, I have to clean better old GTX 580 driver installation.

    Setting DDR to 1333 (7 7 7)  I have a little better benchmark in MPEG2-DVD and MPE on goes to 4.But this result is equal for both cards (580/680)

     

    I load 3D vision and physX drivers because I need for my job. I don't know if this is a problem for benchmark.

    As soon as possible I ' ll try a clean OS install

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 6:45 PM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    Fabio,  Jim, I believe was saying that Premiere Pro is not a video game, - meaning that videos games are the "apps" as Microsoft now calls them with Windows 8, that are taking full advantage of

    these new cards. 

     

    I'm getting a really funny suspicion  that you can max out the performance of Premiere, with a GTX 580 card.  A 10% gain in performance is nothing to write home about, and it may even be

    a fluke at this point.

     

    From what I understand, ALL rendering out to a video file is cpu based.  So video card would NOT aid in the render times.   I have a GTX 470, and either the time line is : RED, Yellow or Green.

    that's it.  There is no inbetween.

     

    When I load a new video file, it doesn't take x amount of seconds for a time line to turn any of those colors, it just is, - as soon as I load the file.  So this tells me, that nothing changes with the 680

    video card.  Sure it will play video back perhaps a tiny bit smoother, but perhaps maybe not even.

     

    Things are sure complicated at this point.

     

    I'm guessing that the motherboard you are using with your new video card is only PCI 2.  This is a bottleneck in the system, and it's 100% sure you are not getting the throughput that the card can

    give you, however for actual render time, - again - in theory, if you had NO video card in your computer, render times ( outputting to a video file ) should remain exactly the same.  This being I understand

    the basics of how Premiere works.  Premiere uses 100% CPU power to render a video file out to disk, and the video card does nothing to increase or decrease the times you ge with that rendering to

    an output video file.

     

    This stuff is rather confusing.

     

    Dave.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 7:57 PM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    I am confident in superior results with new drivers release.

     

    I would be surprised, as new driver updates aren't normally geared towards improving compute performance, they're generally tweaks to make specific games run faster or eliminate game errors.  And even then the performance increase is usually pretty small, 1% to 5% typically, which is far short of the 300% render performance increase we all wanted to see from a card with 3x the CUDA cores.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 11:10 PM   in reply to David Zeno

    David, Jim,

    I have put my benchmark data to help people to understand that for "experienced" PP user this card is pretty identical in performance with GTX 580 and maybe lower cards.

    I have bought this card for various reasons:
    1) Management of monitors
    2) power consumptions
    3) new tecnology
    I knew that probably I would not have had large benefits with it but for me was clear that 512 cuda cores (of my "old" 580GTX) are not absolutely inferior to "new" 1536 cuda cores( ATI stream processors docet) Nvidia marketing move.

    For me, pci express bandwidth is not the problem for now


    I think that with this movement nvidia (and its partner) it wants to push seriously using of the new graphical cards of the Quadro family, maybe.

     

    For these reason I am happy of my new card, probabIy I expected still less.
    I now hope to more clearly have express my thought
    And sorry for my bad english
    
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 12:34 AM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    Fabio can you Please tell me the GPU Clockspeed of both GTX.

     

    I will use a GTX 6XX Series OOONLYY If I have PCIX 3.0 slot. "X79"

     

    Why????

    Memory interface

     

    Look:

    GTX580:

     

     

    SPECIFICATIONS GPU:

    CUDA Cores512
    Graphics Clock (MHz)772
    Processor Clock (MHz)1544
    Texture Fill Rate (billion / s)49.4

    MEMORY SPECIFICATIONS:

    Memory Clock (MHz)2004
    Config. standard memory1536 MB GDDR5
    Memory interface384-bit
    Bandwidth of memory (GB / s)192.4

     

     

    GTX 680

    Specifications GPU

    CUDA kernels

    1536

    Normal clock frequency

    1006

    Accelerated rate

    1058

    Texture Fill Rate

    128.8

    Memory specifications

    Memory Frequency ( Gbps )

    6008

    Amount of memory

    2048MB

    Memory interface

    256-bit GDDR5

    Full bandwidth.

    192.2

     

     

     

     

     

    IF MAN DO NOT HAVE A PCIX3.0 THE GTX 580 WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER PERFORMANCE.

     

    OOONNLYY THE CLOCKSPEED ON THE GTX680 CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.

     

    Let see what happen whit a GTX 680 ON an MOBO X79 O.C.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 12:46 AM   in reply to Crist OC/PC

    for both cards standard reference clocks.

    No overclock for them.

    In my opinion, pciex 3.0 will not be the different. for bandwith I think 2.0 is not saturated today.

     

    as a note,

    monitoring GPU load with gpu z, it seems GPU is not much used during Premiere pro job (max 66% of load), for both cards.

    [IMG]http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/12/03/30/8pc.png[/IMG]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 12:59 AM   in reply to Fabio Pis

    So you recognize that memory interface is superior in the GTX 580 even in the gtx570.. That means that a GTX570 O.C. 950MHZ will work better than the gtx680... under PCI Express slot.

     

    PCIX3.0 IT IS the big thing. And this is for everyone who is looking what Im writing.  PCIX 3.0 dobles bandwidth over PCIX 2.0.

     

    But well as usualy I will show some result wich speak by itself.

     

    Cheers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points