[Badbonji]

You won't havy anything to worry about with that processor! You have it overclocked? That will reduce any possible bottleneck by the CPU! I don't feel bottlenecked and I am using a Core i7 965 (sig).

[dejo]

@bad
how are the benches on the gtx680 for 01,03,05+06

[diaz]

Originally Posted by St Alban

Hey guys I was thinking of getting a 680. I have a i7 2600k processor. I shouldn't have to worry about bottle-necking for this generation of processors right? Also Anyone know any news about the 670 release date and price point? I may go that route if they release before Guild Wars 2

That CPU wont bottleneck anything, other than maybe some specific CPU intensive games, but even higher end CPUs will still have difficulty in the same games. If anything, the GTX680 further removes CPU dependency by optimizing for DX11. The 680 is the king of the hill with DX11, it LOVES DX11.

[St Alban]

Thanks for the help guys. I haven't OCed my CPU yet....Waiting on getting a GPU. I really probably wont mess with it for a few years when I get a new case and a second 680 to SLI Now if I could only get some money and they would be in stock!

[Bobnova]

It all depends on what you mean by bottleneck. There isn't a single GPU benchmark that I am aware of that doesn't benefit from OCing a 2600K from 5GHz to 5.5GHz.
Does that mean it's bottlenecked? Hard to say IMO.

In any case you won't find a faster CPU till IB comes out anyway, so don't worry about it. (Technically SB-E might be faster, but if the SB is OC'd it will probably be OC'd further than the SB-E due to heat, which makes up for the slightly lower clock/clock performance)

[St Alban]

I think I would need a different motherboard to OC my card I currently have a ASUSTeK CG8350 (LGA1155)

Whats the noise quotient on the 680s do they run cooler and quieter than the 580s?

[Badbonji]

Originally Posted by dejo

@bad
how are the benches on the gtx680 for 01,03,05+06

I haven't got them installed currently, also had to reset the CMOS on the motherboard to just get the pc to boot after switching cards, so I am back at stock CPU speeds for now I won't have much chance at scoring well on those compared to people with 2600K's

[diaz]

Originally Posted by Bobnova

It all depends on what you mean by bottleneck. There isn't a single GPU benchmark that I am aware of that doesn't benefit from OCing a 2600K from 5GHz to 5.5GHz.
Does that mean it's bottlenecked? Hard to say IMO.

In any case you won't find a faster CPU till IB comes out anyway, so don't worry about it. (Technically SB-E might be faster, but if the SB is OC'd it will probably be OC'd further than the SB-E due to heat, which makes up for the slightly lower clock/clock performance)

Benches sure, but if you are talking real world, only certain games would benefit from anything more than a stock 2600k.. and if they do its not by that much.

[thobel]

Any word on the evga gtcx 680 hydro classifieds?

[Super Nade]

Are any of you guys having problems with the staggered power pins? Is it easy to disconnect the power cables?

[Dj Spiel]

I want 2 :-)

[hokiealumnus]

Originally Posted by Super Nade

Are any of you guys having problems with the staggered power pins? Is it easy to disconnect the power cables?

Not at all; it's surprisingly simple. They're staggered enough to make it easy.

[Ivy]

Originally Posted by Bobnova

In any case you won't find a faster CPU till IB comes out anyway, so don't worry about it. (Technically SB-E might be faster, but if the SB is OC'd it will probably be OC'd further than the SB-E due to heat, which makes up for the slightly lower clock/clock performance)

Maximum CPU is totaly dependable on system. On system with low heat-capacity the SB-E with a slight stock volt-OC is more powerful than a volt raised OC-K series (cant handle that heat), even for gaming. Although, nothing can be build that cheap and provide so much power for the bucks such as a K-system. Although i still think that the future will be 6 core and as soon as a game is using it well, its very hard to catch up with 6 cores on a 4 core CPU, because every core will have to work 33% faster. Mostly it only works because most games arnt supporting 6 threads very well but that behaviour may change. So finally, systems with high heat capacity (high is the stuff which allows for non heat capped OC) can always push further using SB-E. Systems with no heat capacity will come further too. Best stuff for 4 core is mainstream systems with average heat capacity or systems which have to be cost-effective. On IB-E the heat issue will become lower, so the smaller systems will be at advantage and IB-E, might become volt-OC able, everywhere except laptops.

Originally Posted by diaz

That CPU wont bottleneck anything, other than maybe some specific CPU intensive games, but even higher end CPUs will still have difficulty in the same games. If anything, the GTX680 further removes CPU dependency by optimizing for DX11. The 680 is the king of the hill with DX11, it LOVES DX11.

Until yet, there wasnt a single game able to push a Nehalem-E, SB-E or equivalent stuff to its very limit as long as only a single GPU used and at least 1080P. The GPU is the limiting factor at below 60 FPS. Everything above makes no sense to me.

I never heard about such a thing such as DX11 CPU dependency. The elements implemented in DX11 are pretty much a GPU only matter. As far as i can remember, the CPU was never of that low importance in whole history because pretty much any low cost CPU (I3 150$ CPU = very sufficient) nowadays is sufficient for gaming. That was not like that in the past and i paid much more for a C2D which was never truly sufficient but more sufficient than any single core (compared to price).

[Seebs]

@ Hokie...

Now that you have the card in your hands; would you mind doing a bit of checking...

- What does nVidia control panels show it as? Seems the guys at TPU got one that shows up as 670Ti and it'd be nice to know if it was an isolated thing, or if nVidia really decided to rebrand the lower end tier card.

- Is there any physical evidence on the card itself? Seems an early sample card came out with the GTX670Ti engraved on the cooler shroud... It's just morbid curiousity, but I'd like to know if any production units slipped through the cracks with this.

Here's the link to their article: TPU Article



Seebs

[hokiealumnus]

I'll check NVIDIA control panel as soon as I'm able. Frantically trying to finish up a motherboard review so I can properly test this thing. Unfortunately that includes re-installing windows for SSD cache testing.

The shroud definitely doesn't have GTX670Ti etched into it. Unless it's under the EVGA sticker and is so shallow it can't be felt through it.

[Badbonji]

I checked and it says GTX 680 like normal for mine. Must of been on the early samples rather than any retail batches.

[Bobnova]

Originally Posted by Ivy

Maximum CPU is totaly dependable on system. On system with low heat-capacity the SB-E with a slight stock volt-OC is more powerful than a volt raised OC-K series (cant handle that heat), even for gaming. Although, nothing can be build that cheap and provide so much power for the bucks such as a K-system. Although i still think that the future will be 6 core and as soon as a game is using it well, its very hard to catch up with 6 cores on a 4 core CPU, because every core will have to work 33% faster. Mostly it only works because most games arnt supporting 6 threads very well but that behaviour may change. So finally, systems with high heat capacity (high is the stuff which allows for non heat capped OC) can always push further using SB-E. Systems with no heat capacity will come further too. Best stuff for 4 core is mainstream systems with average heat capacity or systems which have to be cost-effective. On IB-E the heat issue will become lower, so the smaller systems will be at advantage and IB-E, might become volt-OC able, everywhere except laptops.


Until yet, there wasnt a single game able to push a Nehalem-E, SB-E or equivalent stuff to its very limit as long as only a single GPU used and at least 1080P. The GPU is the limiting factor at below 60 FPS. Everything above makes no sense to me.

I never heard about such a thing such as DX11 CPU dependency. The elements implemented in DX11 are pretty much a GPU only matter. As far as i can remember, the CPU was never of that low importance in whole history because pretty much any low cost CPU (I3 150$ CPU = very sufficient) nowadays is sufficient for gaming. That was not like that in the past and i paid much more for a C2D which was never truly sufficient but more sufficient than any single core (compared to price).

You can OC A 2600K rather significantly before you hit the same heat output as a stock sb-e.
People have been saying "wait till stuff uses more threads, then you'll see!" for most of a decade now, you really have to look at how things are now, rather than how they might be "soon".

[Ivy]

I just hope you may not make same mistaken such as those people who was telling me (in 2007) that it is a complete waste getting a 4 core CPU, and then i got me a C2D and nowadays, it turned out to be a huge failure. 4 core is so much more useful for gaming and even a very old quad core is able to perform well which cant be said for C2D anymore, so the era of C2D is over yet, completly over. Just try to catch up with reality: Most consoles already got 6 threads or cores, AMD CPUs got above 6 core or threads, even the cheapest ones. Only Intel is trying to break the rule using "low core" stuff, thats probably not enough to stand the test of time.

[Janus67]

The xbox has 3 cores. I think the one in the PS3 (the Cell processor) is either 6 or 8, but is [as far as I know] only used in a PS3 and its computational power isn't close to what a current day quad can do.

2007 was 5 years ago, and at that time a dual core was pretty much all that was needed. I had my E8400 until 2008 when I built myself an i7 920 system (which I ran with HT off most of the time for less heat/more overclockability)

[Bobnova]

Nothing you could buy in 2007 stands up very well at all in games now, regardless of the number of cores. Quads stand up better, but still don't do very well.
As Janus pointed out, modern consoles don't run very many cores either. The Cell processor is a fairly unique beast.
AMD's cheapest CPUs are a single thread and single core. Next up are doubles, then triples, then quads, then finally six cores, well above the bottom level.