nVidia GTX 680 now at Newegg

Report · Mar 21, 2012

http://www.newegg.com/GTX680/?nm_mc=EMCCP-032212-NV&cm_mmc=EMCCP-032212-NV-_-GeForceGTX680-_-banner-...

Coupon code good until end of March or when supply is exhausted... good for free shipping EMCNGHJ22 (at checkout)

Report · Mar 31, 2012

David Zeno wrote:
Premiere can use the previews to speed up final export to a video file on your hard drive,

David, yes you can use previews and while it may speed things up, it is generally recommended that you do not use them for creating final output because it will not be as good a quality as if you did not use them.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

David. I had never say that GPU is use in render. Im overclocker so Why whas that comment "rendering a video file to your hard drive has NOTHING to do with the video card." Then I did ask you: "Who is saying so??? What are you talking about???"

If I was an arrogant I will make you look like a stupid, but a do respect people and I just believe is a miss understanding.

What I was pointed have to do with Memory interface betwens GPU 580-680 and the relevance of PCIe. 2.0 AND 3.0.

Sorry if I hurt your feeilings.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

hey, sorry to think you were rude. All is good. I think email makes everyone read one thing and think another, email and posts on the Internet never really do give out

the correct "expressions" that somebody may be tying.

I am a happy person, but sometimes I may write stuff that ticks somebody off. I'm not right all the time, and I guess now I'll keep my mouth shut, no more comments from me,

and I'll only ask questions, seems this is a better thing to do 🙂

I hope to see some more results from people using the new video cards, and the new GTX 685 specifically when it comes out in August. I just cannot see myself putting out $600

for a video card in a week or 2 weeks, knowing that a "new" Nvidia card is coming ou in August, not a nice game Nvidia is playing. I'd be very upset and disappoint if I just put out big $$ for a video

card, and then find out they have one that is so much faster for only $200 more. When you factor in keeping a graphics card for 2 or 3 or 4 years, $200 is not even worth talking about.

We go out and put $60 of petrol in our automobiles every few days, and don't even think about it.

Dave.

Crist OC/PC wrote:
Sorry if I hurt your feeilings.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

David Zeno wrote:
Do you own a copy of Premiere ?
If you did, you would know that Premiere render speeds to an output file are based on your CPU ( a cpu is a computer chip on your motherboard ).
The video card makes no difference. I just assumed you knew Premiere Pro. This forum assumes you know a little bit about Premiere and how it works,
perhaps, read up a bit, and come back later with some intelligent remarks.
Dave.

David, If you knew Premiere you would find your statement is wrong.

Here is a plot from my system showing the GPU (my old GTX 580) usage on a PPBM5 run.

The low level choppy at the front of the GPU plot is during the PPBM5 H.264 encoding and the middle zero level is during the Disk I/O encoding and the end of the plot (91%) is from the MPEG2-DVD encoding. Now Premiere users know that the MainConcept MPEG encoder does not use the GPU BUT the scaling, Pixel Aspect Ratio, Frame Blending, Time Remapping, Fast Color Correction and many other effects are handled by the GPU.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

My latest test:

Clean OS, no antivirus, no codec.Only the base Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1 with all patches.

Creative suite with all available patch

Premiere pro 5.5.2

with MPE:

"54","57","42","4"

without:

"54","57","42","64"

I was thinking to instal some codec like ffdshow o other relative to h264 o mpeg2 it could gain in performance.

If you have some advice I could try in this weekend..then, I have to stop experiment!

---------------------------

Fabio Pis wrote:

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.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Installing other codecs with Premiere installed is asking for problems.

Fabio Pis wrote:
My latest test:
Clean OS, no antivirus, no codec.Only the base Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1 with all patches.
Creative suite with all available patch
Premiere pro 5.5.2
with MPE:
"54","57","42","4"
without:
"54","57","42","64"

Those are extremely good results for an i7-980s at 4.1 GHz with 24 GB of RAM. I do not know if you have searched on PPBM5 and sorted on CS5.5 in the "Versions" tab and then sorted on I7-9xx in the "Model CPU" tab, but that ties you for first place.in that category with a total of 157 seconds

Report · Mar 31, 2012

Yes, I saw! I submitted my result yesterday (thank for your effort , Bill & Harm)

I did some overclock changes (no more fsb overclock, but only multiply factor and core voltage (1.31) with the base 1600 clock for ddr3

Now, after the setup for 3dvision and physiX:

"57","57","42","4"

H264 test is worst than GTX 580.

I saw with gpuZ that gpu load is with mpeg2 dvd constant a 93%, with h264 gpu load it never does not exceed the 63%,and, it is not constant

I ask myself if it exists an h264 alternative codec more optimized.. I have to search.

edit:

After AVG antivirus install:

"64","57","41","5"

so with 3dvision/physiX/AVG I lose nearly 20% in mpeg2 dvd and MPE on.

Report · Mar 31, 2012

Fabio Pis wrote:
H264 test is worst than GTX 580.
I saw with gpuZ that gpu load is with mpeg2 dvd constant a 93%, with h264 gpu load it never does not exceed the 63%,and, it is not constant
I ask myself if it exists an h264 alternative codec more optimized.. I have to search.
edit:
After AVG antivirus install:
"64","57","41","5"
so with 3dvision/physiX/AVG I lose nearly 20% in mpeg2 dvd and MPE on.

Fabio, Thank you for the complement, but you are reading to much into our benchmark, you have to be aware of the limitations of any benchmark. If you look at what the H.264 test is doing you will see that it is mostly using 1920 x 1080 material and encoding to 1920 x 1080 so there is no scaling for the GPU to do. On the other hand the MPEG2-DVD encoding uses the same material and of course scales it to DVD 720 x 480 NTSC. That more than likely, is the major difference that causes the MPEG2-DVD to use much more GPU. Do not get another codec it is only likely to cause many more problems than it worth. This benchmark was designed to evaluate your hardware/software so if you are getting bad results we can try to analyze your system so we can make suggestions if you do not have good results. Since your results are at the top of the list you should just be happy and do not mess it up.

I am not sure you understand what the numbers mean on your AVG comment. The numbers are 64 is a disk intensive score and is listed as Disk I/O, the next number is 57 and this did not change and it is the MPEG2-DVD encoding time, the third number of 41 is the H.264 encoding number and the lasr number of 5 or 4 is the time it takes to obtain the Preview files. Since the limitations of the available Windows timer is 1 second you have to be aware that any answer is going to vary +/-1 second. Now you can see why we always suggest turning off all unnecessary processes when editing.

Report · Mar 31, 2012

Bill Gehrke wrote:
After AVG antivirus install:
"64","57","41","5"
so with 3dvision/physiX/AVG I lose nearly 20% in mpeg2 dvd and MPE on.
I am not sure you understand what the numbers mean on your AVG comment. The numbers are 64 is a disk intensive score and is listed as Disk I/O, the next number is 57 and this did not change and it is the MPEG2-DVD encoding time, the third number of 41 is the H.264 encoding number and the lasr number of 5 or 4 is the time it takes to obtain the Preview files. Since the limitations of the available Windows timer is 1 second you have to be aware that any answer is going to vary +/-1 second. Now you can see why we always suggest turning off all unnecessary processes when editing.

Yes, I misunderstood the right association operation/result.

Now I understand (I hope so! )

Before I had linked the first value (ie 64) with Mpeg dvd, the second one with H264 blue ray and third one with disk test.

For sure I use your test to analize my system, and for this it is very useful in my opinion in some case to test speed and stability and could help to optimize some aspect.

Now, I am very happy that my results "are at the top of the list!

Now I have to rebuild my optimal job setup and I have more experience

Thank you again.

Report · Mar 27, 2012

Hi Bill.

Did you get your GPU?

Im just wacht this.:

Gainward GeForce® GTX 680 2048MB GDDR5	Share27
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... 😃

Report · Mar 27, 2012

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.

Report · Mar 27, 2012

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.

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 GDDR5 Share27
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... 😃

Report · Mar 27, 2012

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.

Report · Mar 27, 2012

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

Report · Mar 28, 2012

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-Converter/dp/B003AR5S5M/ref=sr_1_14?ie...

Baz

Report · Mar 28, 2012

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.

Report · Mar 28, 2012

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

Report · Mar 29, 2012

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.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

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.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

"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.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Is the GTX 680 on Adobe's official list of supported cards yet ?

Also, I'm curious to know if that card is suitable for After Affects CS5.5. Can it help speed-up previews ?

I'm currently using OpenGL via a 1GB AMD Radeon HD-6770 to keep the previews moving.

It's a bit limiting, as it doesn't allow me to add basic effects such as 'Blur' to as many layers as i'd like.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

NO.

read post on this page, it has a direct link to official cards that are supported.

El_Plates wrote:
Is the GTX 680 on Adobe's official list of supported cards yet ?

Report · Mar 30, 2012

"NO.

read post on this page, it has a direct link to official cards that are supported.

El_Plates wrote:
Is the GTX 680 on Adobe's official list of supported cards yet ?

"

Not. sot what? like the GTX460, GTX 480, GTX560,80,90 . They work any how.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

I don't understand your comment. The original poster didn't ask if he can hack a card to make-it-work.

He asked if the 680 is "officially supported" Perhaps you shold correctly read the question. No need to be rude.

I directly and accuracty answered the person's question. Your response is no accurate, or "official"

Dave.

Crist OC/PC wrote:
"NO.
read post on this page, it has a direct link to official cards that are supported.
El_Plates wrote:
Is the GTX 680 on Adobe's official list of supported cards yet ?
"
Not. sot what? like the GTX460, GTX 480, GTX560,80,90 . They work any how.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Hi,

I have been following the discussion here - to help me decide if I should buy the GTX 680 for rendering video with PP, on a new dedicated X79 (i7 six cores) machine with PCI 3.

This far, it seems like i should not.

Fabio (today) says: "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."

This suspicion seems to have support here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-review-benchmark,3161-15.html

So, for now, Quadro seems to me to be a better choise for rendering purposes.

Transcoding: Tom's Hardware benchmark of MPEG2><H.264 seems to have some problems with some software bug and the Espresso application, so I am not sure what degree of truth the result is representing. The better benchmark results for H.264 >< H.264/youtube format transcoding is more convincing.

As for rendering speed, I suppose that this is more a CPU thing, rather dependant on the number of cores. I am not sure though how CPU cores are working against CUDA. So please correct me if I am wrong - it would really make me happy

But if Tom's Hardware review is right in the conclusion that the GTX 680 is in fact deliberately reduced in computing power to not compete with nVidias own Quadro cards, it seems to me that GTX 680 is a dedicated gaming card - not a video rendering card. Unfortunately.

I will continue to follow this thread - hoping that somebody proves me wrong

Happy Eastern!

Adobe Community

nVidia GTX 680 now at Newegg

NVIDIA Kepler GK110 Approximate Specs Leaked