Now, thereвЂ™s a lot more going on in a game than just tessellation to affect overall performance. In comparison, the Tahiti-based Radeons take a roughly 16% ding. However, NvidiaвЂ™s new card takes a 31% performance hit when you toggle tessellation on in the gameвЂ™s settings.

In absolute terms, GeForce GTX 680 easily outperforms the Radeon HD 79, regardless of whether tessellation is used or not. But if youвЂ™re playing something available right now, like HAWX 2, how can you expect Kepler to behave? This improvement is primarily observable in synthetic metrics, which weвЂ™ve seen developers (rightly) argue should represent the future of their efforts, exploiting significantly more geometry than todayвЂ™s titles to augment realism. To begin, Nvidia claims that each PolyMorph engine is redesigned to deliver close to two times the per-clock performance of FermiвЂ™s fixed-function geometry logic. So Nvidia multiplied all of these other resources out, but left its primitive performance alone? Not quite. Now, wait a minute-GF104 had eight PolyMorph engines, too. And one geometry engine per SMX gives us a total of eight. Sixteen texture units per SMX yield 128 in a fully-enabled GK104 processor. We have eight of these SMXs, each with 192 CUDA cores, adding up to 1536. Nvidia claims that the underlying changes made to its SMX architecture result in a theoretical doubling of performance per watt compared to KeplerвЂ™s predecessor-and this is actually something weвЂ™ll be testing today.ДЄlright. By minimizing the amount of power and area consumed by control logic, more space is freed up for doing useful work versus Fermi. The result is that Kepler trades off die size for some reduction in power on the logic side, and more significant savings from clocking.ДЄdditional die area and power are cut by eliminating some of the multi-ported hardware structures used to help schedule warps and moving that work to software. However, comparable performance necessitates two times as many data paths. Halving the shader clock slashes power consumption. Kepler, on the other hand, is tuned for efficiency. But running them twice as fast required much higher clock power. Fewer cores take up less space, after all. Fermi allowed NvidiaвЂ™s architects to optimize for area. The question then becomes: Why on earth would Nvidia throttle back its shader clock in the first place? ItвЂ™s all about the delicate balance of performance, power, and die space, baby. Thus, doubling shader throughput at a given clock rate requires four times as many cores running at half-speed. Previous-generation architectures (everything since G80, that is) operated the shaders two times faster than the core (2:1). Why quadruple the number of CUDA cores and double the other resources? KeplerвЂ™s shaders run at the processorвЂ™s frequency (1:1). Per SM: GK104 GF104 Ratio CUDA Cores192484x Special Function Units3284x Load/Store32162x Texture Units1682x Warp Schedulers422x Geometry Engines111x : GeForce GTX 680: The Hunter Scores A Kill.: Benchmark Results: NVEnc And MediaEspresso 6.5.: Benchmark Results: Compute Performance In LuxMark 2.0.: Benchmark Results: Metro 2033 (DX 11).: Benchmark Results: World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm (DX 11).: Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (DX 9).: Benchmark Results: Crysis 2 (DX 9/DX 11).: Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3 (DX 11).: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 (DX 11).: Overclocking: I Want More Than GPU Boost.: GeForce GTX 680: The Card And Cooling.

Nvidia gtx 680 2 gb