Originally Posted by Rayleyne
they were equal with the 7970 in favour of more games at launch especialy considering the 7970 is older it won then hands down and won now, Sorry but the 680 while a great card and Gk 104 was a great chip, It didn't beat tahiti XT outright and loses thoroughly now.
Gk110 wasn't ready, It wasn't working at all because they were having issues at TSMC
that's the thing, Their 3000 dollar chip had not yet been built it was having issues, Nvidia was the only one at TMSC that was having issues, And as such it was an Nvidia issue as to why GK 110 wasn't working, Hence they clocked the balls off and taped some features to GK 104 and hoped it worked and it did.
Explains a lot.
Now, on to TSMC, the chip was *obviously* built, or they wouldn't have been able to find out their manufacturing process was borked. The problem they had was low yields *not* architecture problems. Meaning their process was flawed, and needed to be tweaked. Your beloved ATI was also having issues, they were just getting higher yields, but not great ones at the time.
Even so, the GK104 was also having low yields, it was just less expensive to fail those, than it was to fail GK110s, so they shipped the 680 as a mostly voltage locked clocked to hell GK104. They could get away with this, because the performance of the 7970 at launch was abysmal due to horrible drivers. Obviously, this has changed because the 7970 of today beats out a 680 quite readily, but that is also because the 680 should really have been released as the 660 or 665 or 660TI, since its the top of the midrange line kepler GPU.
Originally Posted by Alatar
Even the TPU review that was quoted by everyone saying the difference between the 680 and 7970 wasn't a big one says that the 680 was the faster card at all resolutions...
The 680 launched with higher performance than the 7970 at a lower price. Back then it was about the 7970 and 680 being on par when both were overclocked (7970 or 680 winning by a bit depending on the OCs in question).