GeForce GTX 690 announced – twin Kepler GPUs, 915 MHz base clock

OMFGGGGGGGGGGGG JIZZZZZZZZZ JIZZZZZZZZZZZZ OMFGGGGGGGG KMNSNSIJANIDIHANIH

Unless you’re running ludicrous resolutions, this card is not really worth it, at the moment mind you. I own a GTX 680 and it lets me play any game on the market full bore. The 690 has 1 big opponent, GTX 680 in SLI.. Same price, higher clocks, higher performance in theory.

And honestly, 999$….That’s a bit much… you can buy 2 GTX 680 in SLI for that price… As usual, it’s a card for a real niche market and to show that they have the most powerful single card on the market.

My Radeon 5850 runs almost everything 1080p 60 fps highest setting, there are exceptions like witcher 2 but overall I’m still happy as the day I got it.

the same bullshit expensive cards that become useless after 1 year
an example? gtx 295 no patch or bios update to support dx 11 even if that card was a monster in terms of specs so yeah i replace it with the gtx 560 now im set till the new generation of consoles come out

20% better visuals for 400% more money.

@4 It’s not because a new card come out that older ones are useless!

Wow! What a beast! And the TDP is quite reasonable for what this card offers. The price on the other hand, is not. ) Because just as the others said, you don’t really need this. My 560 Ti can run BF3 on High with a minimum of 45 fps. If I would run it on high. Which I don’t, because I like it better on Low. It’s easier to see targets on that setting.

@2 If you read the description, they explain how they tried really hard to make this almost exactly the same as two GTX 680s in SLI. Only the maximum (boosted) clock speed is slightly lowered, by 39 MHz, which is pretty much insignificant.

I guess if you wanted to overclock, you could get better results with two separate cards because then you’d have a cooler for each chip, but why bother with that at this level of performance? I would go for the single card over two of them any day, as it’ll be less power, heat, and noise.

Plus the GTX 690 looks friggen sweet, with the LEDs and little windows! :p

I’m skipping the 6* generation, sticking with my trusty 580. It isn’t breaking a sweat on anything I throw at it so meh.

I’ll probably get a 780. The 680 doesn’t really offer anything new, and I’m not overly fussed about a slightly higher framerate.

Before we had tons of software to maxed your rig just remember doom 3,far cry,half life…Now we have tons of power in both gpu and cpu and we used that for 3D ,multiple monitor or my favorite gimmick, dx11…

It’s not 20% better visuals.

It’s 2560×1600 RESOLUTION and you can run Starcraft II for example in 160 frames per second.
Battlefield 3 with 690 QUAD SLI can be runned by 120 frames per second in that resolution.

the only thing i don’t like in it is power consumption. It’s pretty big.

1080p and 2560×1600 is night and day if you have a monitor to support that resolution.

Games like even Call Of Duty look decent with that resolution.

I’m waiting for super high res monitors to drop in price before I even consider going above 1080.

LOL

I could buy a Vita, PS3, Xbox and a load of games for that price. Graphics are hardly that much better than console anyway.

Is ever going to be bigger resolution then 1080p but on 22 inch monitor?

@Fin,
“Graphics are hardly that much better than console anyway.”

Yeah, because 2560×1600 resolution with 4xAA/Max Settings/16xAFF 60 frames per second for every game (at minimum) is not a big difference to 720p with low end visuals and without physX.

Retard much?

@14, 22 inch don’t support 2560×1600 resolution. Even if you buy this card or 580 GTX, no way you are going to experience this resolution. But expect every game to run at 100 frames per second at 1080p

I bought one year ago 27 inch DELL monitor that supports 2560×1600 resolution just for GTX 580 and i’m not coming back from that res.

You miserable piece of bolshevik genital warp,

Start a blog.

I might have to get one of these. Minecraft will clearly be an even better game with it. I better get a huge monitor too so I can fully appreciate the 2560×1600 resolution with 4xAA/Max Settings/16xAFF 60 frames per second…

@16 tourette-syndrome much?

Why, I just don’t like his comments, see.

I thought so … btw. Its not the badest of all ideas for Erthazus to start an own tech-blog.

Really? iuseopengelwhenimasturbatetodoujinshi.fail.ret

^ A sock or gel? That is the question…

I don’t see anything wrong with being an enthusiast as I am one myself (just got an AW M17XR3; good price, though), so I’m a little dissapointed as the sarky comments about AA and 1600 res and so on. It does make a massive difference, it looks gorgeous. My GF has a monitor that supports the res, and games look fabulous. She’s also getting a free upgrade to a GF680 from her 580 via EVGA’s scheme, lucky sod.

Erthazus might be a bit.. overly passionate.. about how much “better” PC’s are, but underneath all that he does have a point. Consoles are massively inferior now, and even the next gen will be. I agree that Fin’s comment was a bit silly, the gap between PC and console isn’t slight – it’s a chasm – and if you don’t realise that, you haven’t been on a high end PC lately.

Man have you SEEN the latest Call of Duty on Xbox? Those graphics are INSANE.

I don’t dispute that they’ve come on a fair bit with console trickery – you only need to compare Infamous 1 to Infamous 2 to see just how hard they’re pushing the hardware now. But that’s just it, it’s now being pushed to it’s limits.

Lower resolution, less or no AA, smaller FOV (I always set mine to 80-90 on pc if possible), clipping (buildings/trees pop up, or the textures on them do), lower viewing distance, and so on. They sacrifice a lot to get the “in your face” visuals almost on par with today’s PC games; it’s the stuff in the background that they sacrifice mainly.

Granted not that big a deal to some, but I like my shinies to be shiny all around.

Forever Amd

@25

It’s not as fun when people post a calm and measured response to flamebait

I am so close to buying the Dell 30′ Ultrasharp and a 680 if only I could find a 680 to buy! As tempting as this is it’s just too expensive.