gtx 690 is out!

[paradamed]

It is a 4gb version slighlty underclocked in comparison to 680.
I found out about it in this video here:

I will let the tech guru's to do the comments since I know very little about hardware.

[Crazyeyesreaper]

4GB memory onboard only 2GB effective its essentially 2 downclocked GTX 680s, performance power ratios are good, price to performance rather lackluster,

in the end doesnt matter Nvidia can't supply GTX 680 GPUs to market so how will they supply GTX 690s which require double the GPUs lol, great performance for $1000 but will be next to impossible to buy

[paradamed]

And I bet they probably can be outperformed by 2 680s, right? Im still looking forward to the 680 4gb, preferrably the MSI version with the twin frozr cooler. Does anybody have any info if the 680 4gb will actually bereleased?

[GasMask]

I'm wondering what need will this card offer considering the GTX 580 can pretty much dominate another 2 years of gaming requirements ?

very curious.

[Jaketh]

I'm wondering what need will this card offer considering the GTX 580 can pretty much dominate another 2 years of gaming requirements ?

very curious.

the 690 is good for 4 years

[Blau&Gruen]

Too expensive if you do not need it for professional reasons.

[GasMask]

the 690 is good for 4 years

I really cant imagine 4 years from now and seeing the 690 still holding strong would be a cool thing to see for sure.

As many have said this card is very expensive .

[snuggans]

my reaction to the 690 is a dismissive shrug.

performance will obviously change with upcoming drivers but so far it performs at or just under two 680's in SLI. i suppose going with the 690 would be better if you wanted to reduce the hellfire temperatures inside of your case which two cards in SLI exacerbates.

the 690 is obviously aimed towards those gamers running ridiculously high resolutions, for those who are using 120hz monitors and want to stay at 120 fps all the time.

[GasMask]

my reaction to the 690 is a dismissive shrug.

performance will obviously change with upcoming drivers but so far it performs at or just under two 680's in SLI. i suppose going with the 690 would be better if you wanted to reduce the hellfire temperatures inside of your case which two cards in SLI exacerbates.

the 690 is obviously aimed towards those gamers running ridiculously high resolutions, for those who are using 120hz monitors and want to stay at 120 fps all the time.

I was thinking that lag is not seen by the human above 40 fps ?

Someone can detail what im saying i read it in my pc gamer issue an old one it said that the human eye can not see noticeable lag depending on frame rate the only time you would notice is if it dipped under 40 ?

True or Flase ?> complete bollocks ?

[Totalheadache]

beast of a card but 2 expensive for me

but I guess if you have the money and are running several monitors and as jaketh pointed out would def last you a good 4 yrs.

[a tw player]

It's...so beautiful

That being said, even the 670 looks overkill right now

[a tw player]

I know it's not 100% on topic persay, but there's no point in it having its own topic really...



From 1:10 onwards things look pretty interesting wrt the physics and detail on that fur What ramifications will this have on the next gen of games, and is it indeed anything new?

[Crazyeyesreaper]

lol

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

epic trolling that said,

everything NVIDIA is pushing out tech wise, TXAA, variable vsync, gpu boost, PhysX etc etc all their tech is actually very good problem is when your backed into a corner and your only platform is PC your tech when it comes to gaming is gonna end up worthless for a long time, just look at PhysX its been around for 6 years at this point, and i can only think of 3-5 games that actually used it well via GPU acceleration its nothing new and its going nowhere fast, untill Nvidia makes PHYSX open source and able to run accelerated on all GPUs not just their own, this kind of technology will never take off, its a gimmick especially since AMD holds all contracts for consoles which is what gets 90% of the development time.

PS4, Next Gen Xbox, Wii U, Xbox 360, Wii, all AMD based, so we have NVIDIA with PS3 and thats it, which doesnt support gpu accelerated physics since its based on the HD 6800 / 7800 tech from 2005

with no future contracts NVIDIA's only gaming platform is mobile devices which are to weak for this kind of tech and PCs, while PCs are more popular NVIDIA basically splits the market with AMD. This means that even the BEST SELLING PC GAMES

most games on PC are lucky if they break 1 million granted we cant factor in Digital sales because no one tracks that for some reason

regardless a best selling PC game in its life time MIGHT sell 1.5 million copies, so lets say over the life of the game the avg price paid is $35, = $52,000,000
so if a game needed said tech to run cut that in half your now at 750,000 sales and you only earned, $26,000,000

as it stands many games development budgets exceed $100,000,000 as it stands PC only games are seldom fully profitable these days its why we see port jobs and multi platform releases, and because of this and the fact consoles dont adopt tech they are stuck on a cycle means the tech Nvidia loves to show off wont be mainstream untill probably 2020 when the next set of consoles release after the Wii U, PS4 etc, so

we might see this kind of tech when PS5 etc comes out, its interesting stuff but again lowest common denominator = most users PCs suck balls, consoles dont support tech, developers relying on said tech would be committing corporate suicide so it just wont happen.

[a tw player]

Well, that's a bit of a bummer...

Not even in PC exclusives, such as perhaps on the next TW engine? (assuming they go back to NVIDIA after randomly switching to AMD, despite NVIDIA blowing them out of the water somewhat)

[Akaie]

...there, there, my lovely 560. You are safe. You're not going anywhere. The mean 680 and 690 can't hurt you, not with all supply.

[Kanaric]

Have games come out that even have any stiffer graphics requirements than 2 years ago? My old computers 4770s still runs everything on the highest settings.

[snuggans]

Have games come out that even have any stiffer graphics requirements than 2 years ago? My old computers 4770s still runs everything on the highest settings.

battlefield 3 at 1080 or higher, high to ultra
metro 2033 at 1080 or higher, DX11
crysis 1, crysis: warhead, crysis 2 ( of course )
shogun 2 at 1080 or higher, full everything
skyrim at 1080, with full AA, AF & high res textures
final fantasy xiv

[Akaie]

crysis 1, crysis: warhead, crysis 2 ( of course )

Ohh yes. I would have loved to see the face on my old 9800GT when Crysis Warhead defaulted to the "enthusiast" settings. I was managing a single frame every few seconds .

I wouldn't mind seeing how good a maxed out Metro 2033 looks on a 680 or 690. That curiosity sure as hell won't lead me to spending ~$680/~$1700AU though .

[paradamed]

Have games come out that even have any stiffer graphics requirements than 2 years ago? My old computers 4770s still runs everything on the highest settings.

It is all a matter of the resolution you are running your game and the fps you get. I doubt you can have over 5 fps in bf3 with everything maxed at 1920x1080 resolution with a 4770. A gtx 690 is totally worth it. It is all a matter of how much you can spend and which card you bought in your last build.

[Crazyeyesreaper]

try metro 2033 in DX11 mode even with Depth of Field off and AA off it still kicks systems in the nuts at 1920x1080 or higher, DX10 mode runs on everything tho.