Exclusive in TH Labs: Gigabyte GTX 680 OC Wind Force X3

Status
Not open for further replies.

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]andboomer[/nom]Needs more fans.[/citation]

Give me a waterblock and a slightly lower price (money for bigger fan and radiator), and I'll be happy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]frozonic[/nom]it looks really cool.[/citation]
OH I see wut u did thar!!!
 

dontcrosthestreams

Distinguished
Apr 15, 2011
129
0
18,690
1
after overclocking everything for 2 years now, I have realized that even a 100 mhz bump doesnt improve performance more than 5 fps. So when i see people spend 120$ per water block for 2 cards i feel sad. my 6950 2gb is at 910 using a 55$ universal water block. Total spent on my WC set up is 330$ for cpu and gpu... I should have saved my money.
 
[citation][nom]dontcrosthestreams[/nom]after overclocking everything for 2 years now, I have realized that even a 100 mhz bump doesnt improve performance more than 5 fps. So when i see people spend 120$ per water block for 2 cards i feel sad. my 6950 2gb is at 910 using a 55$ universal water block. Total spent on my WC set up is 330$ for cpu and gpu... I should have saved my money.[/citation]

Sorry, but what you said is completely out of context and can be wrong or right depending on the situation. An overclock doesn't increase performance by adding FPS, it increases it by a percentage. For example, increasing clock frequencies generally increases performance very close to linearly. Increasing a 600MHz GPU that gets say 100FPS in something that is not CPU limited by 100MHz to 700MHz is an 16.66666...% increase in clock frequency and will equate to a more than 16% performance increase if there are not other significant bottlenecks. That would increase FPS by about 16 from 100 to 116*.

Overclocking a GPU at 1GHz that gets under 50FPS in something by 100MHz won't increase the FPS by more than 5 because then it's a 10% gain and 5 is 10% of 50. What you said is like saying that increasing a CPU's clock frequency by 400MHz won't decrease the amount of time it takes a task by more than 5 seconds. It doesn't take into account the clock frequency of the CPU before and after the overclock (a 2GHz CPU like the Pentium Dual-Core 2180 with a 400MHz overclock will see a much greater improvement out of a 400MHz overclock than a higher clocked CPU such as a 3.7GHz CPU like the Phenom II x4 980 BE).

It doesn't take into account different games at different quality settings. For example, a game that is only running at 25FPS may not be considered playable, but a 5FPS improvement (a large 20% improvement) would land it into 30FPS which may be considered playable in whatever game is being played at whatever quality settings, resolution, and AA it is set at.

It doesn't take into account that if the FPS already being had is say 60FPS in a first person shooter game on say the 7950at 800MHz, a 100MHz improvement is a 12.5% gain that can get a 12.5% improvement in FPS, or about 7.5, or about 50% higher than what you say is the maximum.

Truly, you made an exceptionally ignorant statement for someone who uses such high end hardware and overclocks it yourself.

Now, was your water cooling setup cost effective for it's performance gain? Not in the least. Had you simply bought cards that used better than reference cooling and overclocked them on the stock air coolers, you would have had a much more cost effective performance gain. As for the CPU, you could have simply gotten a much cheaper air cooler such as the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus or Hyper 212 Evo, two of the best value coolers ever (they beat most of the much more expensive air coolers despite costing between $20 and $35 each on Newegg, depending on sales).



* Highly variable depending on a huge number of circumstances exactly how much it will improve, but it should be very close to a 16% improvement so long as there isn't another bottleneck including but not limited to the GPU's memory bandwidth and/or capacity, the system's CPU, and the game and/or other software being run (and the intensiveness settings such as quality, resolution, AA, and more in the game or other settings in the software).
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4
Maybe i just got really good at sound proofing my cases, but i can't even hear 3x 480 gtx's running at 100% fanspeed....

I like watercooling for the "looks", but as far as price/performance, i feel it's a waste.

For the cost of a good wc setup, you could just add a 2nd or 3rd gpu for a much bigger performance boost. Just my 2 cents.
 

monsta

Splendid
Looks like the current windforce cooler they used on the 580, they were really good , cooled well and not noisy at all, look forward to seeing the results of this card, I do like the location of the power connecters better on this card over the reference card.
 

Maximus_Delta

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
269
0
18,810
7
Why didn't this get its over Tom's news article:

http://www.techpowerup.com/163144/PowerColor-Radeon-HD-7970-Vortex-II-Detailed-Some-More.html

Proper card for those not interested in gimmicks... the Tom's bias towards Nvidia is pretty evident (how much are you guys getting paid / revenue earning from nVidia ??) first the reviews which make out 5-15% gain is earth shattering and forget the 7970 overclocks to the same and now this... the few watts better power consumption on the 680 probably coz they ripped out all the compute capbilities but couldn't of put it like that now could you...
 
Quote: "the world's first look at the Gigabyte GTX 680 OC WindForce 3X."
Unless you have been reading Guru3d.com at any point since early this morning:
http://www.guru3d.com/news/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-680-oc-edition-photos/

I did like this quote from the Guru3d article: "Cooling will be based on the new WindForce cooler, which i can say works pretty darn well."
 

ismaeljrp

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2012
408
0
18,860
25
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Sorry, but what you said is completely out of context and can be wrong or right depending on the situation. An overclock doesn't increase performance by adding FPS, it increases it by a percentage. For example, increasing clock frequencies generally increases performance very close to linearly. Increasing a 600MHz GPU that gets say 100FPS in something that is not CPU limited by 100MHz to 700MHz is an 16.66666...% increase in clock frequency and will equate to a more than 16% performance increase if there are not other significant bottlenecks. That would increase FPS by about 16 from 100 to 116*.Overclocking a GPU at 1GHz that gets under 50FPS in something by 100MHz won't increase the FPS by more than 5 because then it's a 10% gain and 5 is 10% of 50. What you said is like saying that increasing a CPU's clock frequency by 400MHz won't decrease the amount of time it takes a task by more than 5 seconds. It doesn't take into account the clock frequency of the CPU before and after the overclock (a 2GHz CPU like the Pentium Dual-Core 2180 with a 400MHz overclock will see a much greater improvement out of a 400MHz overclock than a higher clocked CPU such as a 3.7GHz CPU like the Phenom II x4 980 BE).It doesn't take into account different games at different quality settings. For example, a game that is only running at 25FPS may not be considered playable, but a 5FPS improvement (a large 20% improvement) would land it into 30FPS which may be considered playable in whatever game is being played at whatever quality settings, resolution, and AA it is set at.It doesn't take into account that if the FPS already being had is say 60FPS in a first person shooter game on say the 7950at 800MHz, a 100MHz improvement is a 12.5% gain that can get a 12.5% improvement in FPS, or about 7.5, or about 50% higher than what you say is the maximum.Truly, you made an exceptionally ignorant statement for someone who uses such high end hardware and overclocks it yourself.Now, was your water cooling setup cost effective for it's performance gain? Not in the least. Had you simply bought cards that used better than reference cooling and overclocked them on the stock air coolers, you would have had a much more cost effective performance gain. As for the CPU, you could have simply gotten a much cheaper air cooler such as the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus or Hyper 212 Evo, two of the best value coolers ever (they beat most of the much more expensive air coolers despite costing between $20 and $35 each on Newegg, depending on sales).* Highly variable depending on a huge number of circumstances exactly how much it will improve, but it should be very close to a 16% improvement so long as there isn't another bottleneck including but not limited to the GPU's memory bandwidth and/or capacity, the system's CPU, and the game and/or other software being run (and the intensiveness settings such as quality, resolution, AA, and more in the game or other settings in the software).[/citation]

Seriously, Bravo...no joke, one of the best comments I've seen on Tom's.
 

dontcrosthestreams

Distinguished
Apr 15, 2011
129
0
18,690
1
he was repeating my own realization...i didnt communicate well enough. ya a 30$ cpu cooler did work fine, but it made noise and the heat past 3.8. wasnt to my liking. but i guess writing a narcissistic essay in a forum made his day. My real comment should have been... i see people buying oc vendor cars that cost 50$ more than reference and they still go out and wc it lol.
 

aidynphoenix

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2009
155
0
18,680
0
i cant stand using a card that basically hangs and bows downwards when installed correctly.
the pci bracket is secured and the card is fully inserted, yet the card leans downwards and looks like shit.

im going to get one that looks like its built damn well and wont flex.
 

sempifi99

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2010
93
0
18,640
1
An 8 pin power connector, I can't wait to see how it overclocks. I am tempted to return my GTX 680 and go after this one once it becomes avalable.
 

hardcore_gamer

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2010
540
0
18,980
0
Saphire is going to release a 7970 named "Atomic RX" with 1335Mhz core clock and 5735 MHz effective memory clock.This is going to beat all the cards out there, including 6990 and 590.
 

franky4ro

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2007
29
0
18,530
0
Don't know about you guyz but i really reallyyy looking forward for GAINWARD GTX 680 PHANTOM ...those are some cool temperatures and low noise :)
 

FormatC

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2011
981
1
18,990
1
@franky4ro:
The Gainward Phantom is a heavy weight 3-slot-monster, but the noise level is not really better. This Windforce ends at 66°C in my torture tests - certainly not a bad value :)
 

hellfire24

Splendid


it may be good but not better then MSI Twinfrozer IMO.but that's just my opinion :)
 
[citation][nom]Maximus_Delta[/nom]Why didn't this get its over Tom's news article:http://www.techpowerup.com/163144/ [...] -More.htmlProper card for those not interested in gimmicks... the Tom's bias towards Nvidia is pretty evident (how much are you guys getting paid / revenue earning from nVidia ??) first the reviews which make out 5-15% gain is earth shattering and forget the 7970 overclocks to the same and now this... the few watts better power consumption on the 680 probably coz they ripped out all the compute capbilities but couldn't of put it like that now could you...[/citation]

Not everyone overclocks. For the large amount of people who leave things at stock, the GTX 680 is faster for less money and uses less power. Unless they need compute performance, well, Nvidia practically made that purchase choice for them by making it so nearly perfect in comparison with AMD right now, so long as you find GTX 680s in stock.

Also, the GTX 680 seems to be able to overclock too, so if it has anywhere near as much headroom as the 7970, then it still wins anyway. Tom's meager attempt at overclocking only covered a single method that had never even been tested before. They didn't even post a review that included trying to overclock the GTX 680 like you normally would, by raising it's base frequency.

[citation][nom]hardcore_gamer[/nom]Saphire is going to release a 7970 named "Atomic RX" with 1335Mhz core clock and 5735 MHz effective memory clock.This is going to beat all the cards out there, including 6990 and 590.[/citation]

I have to wonder if it uses a highly binned Tahiti and can overclock even further than it's stock frequencies, although at stock for it, it would be more on par with the 6990 than beating it. It will probably suck up a significant amount of power too (although obviously a lot less than the 6990, it probably won't use more than the GTX 480/580 cards, who's to say exactly until we get more info?).

[citation][nom]dontcrosthestreams[/nom]he was repeating my own realization...i didnt communicate well enough. ya a 30$ cpu cooler did work fine, but it made noise and the heat past 3.8. wasnt to my liking. but i guess writing a narcissistic essay in a forum made his day. My real comment should have been... i see people buying oc vendor cars that cost 50$ more than reference and they still go out and wc it lol.[/citation]

Well, my Phenom II x6 OC'd to a little over 4GHz certainly isn't a power efficient CPU, but my Hyper 212 (regular Hyper 212, not even as good as the Plus or Evo because mine has only a 92mm fan instead of a 120mm fan) handles it and it isn't even loud either. Considering that the case is open on both sides, that's saying something. I don't know what cooler you bought, but the Plus and Evo are not loud coolers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY