670 gtx vs 760 gtx: GeForce GTX 670 vs GeForce GTX 760 Graphics cards Comparison

23 мая, 2021

GeForce GTX 670 vs GeForce GTX 760 Graphics cards Comparison

If you are going to buy a new graphics card and are choosing between GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760, there are a couple of things to consider. Cards with more VRAM in general perform better and allow you to play on higher graphics settings. Size also makes a difference. A model with a large heatsink can occupy up to three expansion slots on a motherboard. Be sure you have enough room in your PC case. When comparing GPUs with different architectures, more processing cores and even higher TFLOPS will not always translate to better performance. To help you decide which GPU you need, we have measured frame rates in a number of popular games. For more on how the GeForce GTX 670 stacks up against GeForce GTX 760, check out specs charts below.

GeForce GTX 670

Check Price

GeForce GTX 760

Check Price

Main Specs

  GeForce GTX 670 GeForce GTX 760
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 170 Watt
Interface PCIe 3. 0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors Two 6-pin Two 6-pin
Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 2 GB
Display Connectors 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
 

Check Price

Check Price
  • Both graphics cards have the same power consumption of 170 Watt.
  • Both video cards are using PCIe 3.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
  • GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760 have maximum RAM of 2 GB.
  • Both cards are used in Desktops.
  • GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760 are build with Kepler architecture.
  • Both graphics cards have the same core clock speed.
  • GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760 are manufactured by 28 nm process technology.
  • Both graphics cards are the same length of 9 mm.
  • Memory clock speed of GeForce GTX 760 is 2994 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 670.

Game benchmarks

Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks
high / 1080p 35−40 24−27
ultra / 1080p 21−24 14−16
QHD / 1440p 16−18 9−10
4K / 2160p 10−11 6−7
low / 720p 60−65 45−50
medium / 1080p 40−45 30−35
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is 45% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 55−60 35−40
ultra / 1080p 45−50 30−35
QHD / 1440p 35−40 18−20
4K / 2160p 18−20 10−11
low / 720p 100−110 75−80
medium / 1080p 60−65 40−45
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Battlefield 5 is 50% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 50−55 50−55
QHD / 1440p 0−1 0−1
GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone.
low / 768p 250−260 240−250
medium / 768p 220−230 210−220
ultra / 1080p 180−190 130−140
QHD / 1440p 110−120 100−110
4K / 2160p 70−75 60−65
high / 768p 210−220 180−190
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 12% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 60−65 60−65
medium / 1080p 55−60 55−60
GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 760 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077.
low / 768p 120−130 120−130
medium / 768p 110−120 110−120
ultra / 1080p 100−110 85−90
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Dota 2 is 5% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 45−50 30−35
ultra / 1080p 40−45 27−30
QHD / 1440p 27−30 21−24
4K / 2160p 14−16 9−10
low / 720p 80−85 60−65
medium / 1080p 45−50 30−35
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Far Cry 5 is 38% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 60−65 35−40
ultra / 1080p 45−50 30−35
QHD / 1440p 27−30 18−20
4K / 2160p 27−30 −
low / 720p 180−190 140−150
medium / 1080p 110−120 85−90
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Fortnite is 35% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 60−65 40−45
ultra / 1080p 45−50 30−35
QHD / 1440p 30−35 18−20
4K / 2160p 24−27 16−18
low / 720p 100−110 80−85
medium / 1080p 65−70 45−50
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Forza Horizon 4 is 40% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 140−150 110−120
medium / 768p 120−130 100−110
high / 1080p 70−75 45−50
ultra / 1080p 30−35 20−22
QHD / 1440p 21−24 10−12
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Grand Theft Auto V is 33% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 24−27 16−18
ultra / 1080p 20−22 12−14
QHD / 1440p 16−18 12−14
4K / 2160p 8−9 4−5
low / 720p 65−70 45−50
medium / 1080p 30−35 21−24
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Metro Exodus is 47% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 130−140 120−130
medium / 1080p 120−130 110−120
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Minecraft is 8% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
ultra / 1080p 14−16 14−16
low / 720p 100−110 80−85
medium / 1080p 18−20 18−20
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 21% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
high / 1080p 24−27 18−20
ultra / 1080p 16−18 12−14
QHD / 1440p 10−11 4−5
4K / 2160p 7−8 3−4
low / 720p 65−70 45−50
medium / 1080p 35−40 24−27
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 50% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 130−140 90−95
medium / 768p 85−90 55−60
high / 1080p 45−50 30−35
ultra / 1080p 24−27 16−18
4K / 2160p 16−18 10−11
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 47% more, than GeForce GTX 760.
low / 768p 90−95 90−95
medium / 768p 60−65 60−65
ultra / 1080p 50−55 45−50
high / 768p 60−65 55−60
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 670 in World of Tanks is 3% more, than GeForce GTX 760.

Full Specs

  GeForce GTX 670 GeForce GTX 760
Architecture Kepler Kepler
Code name GK104 GK104
Type Desktop Desktop
Release date 10 May 2012 25 June 2013
Pipelines 1344 1152
Core clock speed 980 MHz 980 MHz
Boost Clock 980 MHz 1033 MHz
Transistor count 3,540 million 3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology 28 nm 28 nm
Texture fill rate 102. 5 billion/sec 94.1 billion/sec
Floating-point performance 2,459.5 gflops 2,378 gflops
Length 9.5″ (24.1 cm) 9.5″ (24.1 cm)
Memory bus width 256-bit GDDR5 256 Bit
Memory clock speed 6.0 GB/s 3000 MHz
Memory bandwidth 192.2 GB/s 192.2 GB/s
Shared memory —
DirectX 12 (11_0) 12 (11_0)
Shader Model 5.1 5.1
OpenGL 4.2 4.3
OpenCL 1.2 1.2
Vulkan 1.1.126 1. 1.126
CUDA + +
CUDA cores 1344 1152
Bus support PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0
Height 4.376″ (11.1 cm) 4.376″ (11.1 cm)
SLI options + +
Multi monitor support 4 displays 4 displays
HDMI + +
HDCP + +
Maximum VGA resolution 2048×1536 2048×1536
Audio input for HDMI Internal Internal
3D Blu-Ray +
3D Gaming + +
3D Vision + +
3D Vision Live +
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) 97 Mh/s 83 Mh/s
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) 13 Mh/s 3. 5 Mh/s
Blu Ray 3D +
Minimum recommended system power 500 Watt
PhysX +
 

Check Price

Check Price

Similar compares

  • GeForce GTX 670 vs Iris Xe MAX Graphics
  • GeForce GTX 670 vs GRID M60 2Q
  • GeForce GTX 760 vs Iris Xe MAX Graphics
  • GeForce GTX 760 vs GRID M60 2Q
  • GeForce GTX 670 vs Radeon R9 M395X
  • GeForce GTX 670 vs Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire
  • GeForce GTX 760 vs Radeon R9 M395X
  • GeForce GTX 760 vs Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire

Gainward GeForce GTX 760 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 670: What is the difference?

41points

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

41points

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

KFA2 EX OC 4GB

vs

54 facts in comparison

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Why is Gainward GeForce GTX 760 better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 670?

  • 65MHz faster GPU clock speed?
    980MHzvs915MHz
  • 52MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
    1032MHzvs980MHz

Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 better than Gainward GeForce GTX 760?

  • 0. 2 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
    2.46 TFLOPSvs2.26 TFLOPS
  • 2.1 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
    25.6 GPixel/svs23.5 GPixel/s
  • 7.9 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
    102 GTexels/svs94.1 GTexels/s
  • 192 more shading units?
    1344vs1152
  • 16 more texture mapping units (TMUs)?
    112vs96
  • 313 higher PassMark (G3D) result?
    5366vs5053
  • 1 more GPUs supported?
    3vs2

Which are the most popular comparisons?

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce 940MX

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

AMD Radeon RX 550

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

AMD Radeon Vega 8

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

AMD Radeon HD 7850

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce MX150

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

AMD Radeon RX 550

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

Nvidia GeForce MX330

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 DDR4

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 960

Gainward GeForce GTX 760

vs

AMD Radeon R9 390

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

vs

Palit GeForce GTX 760 JetStream

Price comparison

User reviews

Performance

1. GPU clock speed

980MHz

915MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.GPU turbo

1032MHz

980MHz

When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

3.pixel rate

23.5 GPixel/s

25.6 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

4.floating-point performance

2.26 TFLOPS

2.46 TFLOPS

Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

5.texture rate

94.1 GTexels/s

102 GTexels/s

The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

1502MHz

1502MHz

The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

7.shading units

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

8.texture mapping units (TMUs)

TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

9.render output units (ROPs)

The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

Memory

1.effective memory speed

6008MHz

6008MHz

The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.

2. maximum memory bandwidth

192.2GB/s

192GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

256bit

256bit

A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

5.version of GDDR memory

Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.

6.Supports ECC memory

✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

Features

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

2.OpenGL version

OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

3.OpenCL version

Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

4.Supports multi-display technology

✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.

5.load GPU temperature

A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.

7.Supports 3D

✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.

9.PassMark (G3D) result

This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

Ports

1. has an HDMI output

✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.

2.HDMI ports

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Gainward GeForce GTX 760)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 670)

More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.

3.HDMI version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Gainward GeForce GTX 760)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 670)

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4.DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best graphics cards?

GeForce GTX 670 vs GeForce GTX 760


GeForce GTX 670 vs GeForce GTX 760


  1. Home
  2. VGA Benchmarks
  3. GeForce GTX 670 vs GeForce GTX 760

  • GeForce GTX 670

    108%

  • GeForce GTX 760

    100%

Relative performance

  • GeForce GTX 670

    105%

  • GeForce GTX 760

    100%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 670
5% higher gaming performance.
Supports PhysX
Supports G-Sync
Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty)
Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Kepler), there are less performance optimizations for current games and applications
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 760
This is a much newer product, it might have better long term support.
Supports PhysX
Supports G-Sync
Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty)
Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Kepler), there are less performance optimizations for current games and applications

HWBench recommends GeForce GTX 670

The GeForce GTX 670 is the better performing card based on the game benchmark suite used (8 combinations of games and resolutions).

Core Configuration
GeForce GTX 670 GeForce GTX 760
GPU Name GK104 (GK104-325-A2) vs GK104 (GK104-225-A2)
Fab Process 28 nm vs 28 nm
Die Size 294 mm² vs 294 mm²
Transistors 3,540 million vs 3,540 million
Shaders 1344 vs 1152
Compute Units 7 vs 6
Core clock 915 MHz vs 980 MHz
ROPs 32 vs 32
TMUs 112 vs 96

Memory Configuration
GeForce GTX 670 GeForce GTX 760
Memory Type GDDR5 vs GDDR5
Bus Width 256 bit vs 256 bit
Memory Speed 1502 MHz


6008 MHz effective		 vs 1502 MHz


6008 MHz effective
Memory Size 2048 Mb vs 2048 Mb
Additional details
GeForce GTX 670 GeForce GTX 760
TDP 170 watts vs 170 watts
Release Date 10 May 2012 vs 25 Jun 2013

  • GeForce GTX 670

    25. 60 GP/s

  • GeForce GTX 760

    23.50 GP/s

GigaPixels — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 670

    102.00 GT/s

  • GeForce GTX 760

    94.10 GT/s

GigaTexels — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 670

    192.00 GB/s

  • GeForce GTX 760

    192.00 GB/s

GB/s — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 670

    2460.00 GFLOPs

  • GeForce GTX 760

    2258.00 GFLOPs

GFLOPs — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 670

    9330

  • GeForce GTX 760

    8600

Points (higher is better)

DX11, Ultra Quality,2x MSAA,16x AF, HBAO

  • GeForce GTX 670

    58

  • GeForce GTX 760

    54

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Ultra Quality,DDOD, FX AA

  • GeForce GTX 670

    71

  • GeForce GTX 760

    64

FPS (higher is better)

DX11,Very High Quality, FXAA

  • GeForce GTX 670

    42

  • GeForce GTX 760

    39

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, High Quality, 2x MSAA, 16x AF

  • GeForce GTX 670

    54

  • GeForce GTX 760

    52

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Ultra Quality, 4xMSAA

  • GeForce GTX 670

    55

  • GeForce GTX 760

    54

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, AAA standard, 16xAF, Motion Blur normal, Tesselation normal

  • GeForce GTX 670

    43

  • GeForce GTX 760

    41

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Ultra, DDOD, FXAA

  • GeForce GTX 670

    43

  • GeForce GTX 760

    41

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, High Quality, 2x MSAA, 16x AF

  • GeForce GTX 670

    39

  • GeForce GTX 760

    37

FPS (higher is better)

VS
GeForce GTX 670 Radeon RX 550
VS
GeForce GTX 670 Radeon R9 370X
VS
GeForce GTX 760 Radeon RX 550
VS
GeForce GTX 760 Radeon R9 370X
VS
Radeon RX 560X Radeon RX 560D
VS
Radeon RX 560D Radeon RX 560

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM Folding@Home PPD Averages, Power Consumption & Research Projects

GPU FOLDING OVERVIEW

Folding@Home PPD for the GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM represents the averages of folding work unit
samples collected from a wide variety of users different computer hardware configurations.

Average values are used to
best represent folding PPD performance of a GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM across different F@H projects and user
variables such as power settings, overclocks, operating system and specific work units which can yield
wildly different highs and lows for PPD scores on the same GPU platform.

GPU PPD AVERAGE: ALL OS

223,899

Average of 61 most recent PPD samples

Data Samples: ALL OS

61

All Time

Stats as of Thursday, 29 September 2022 00:06:04

TRY OUR BETTER F@H WEB CLIENT

Get more details on your GPU and CPU PPD in real-time, save money with folding time of use scheduling. Available for chrome, edge, brave and other chromium browsers.

GET IT FOR FREE NOW

GK104 [GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM] 2634 — Nvidia

DATA SAMPLES INFO
Filter applied, PPD samples all time 		RECENT AVERAGE FOLDING PERFORMANCE
Based on the 500 most recent, available PPD samples by filter 		WORK UNIT PPD RECORDS
All Time
OS FILTER SAMPLES PPD WU Per 24hrs Time Per WU Points Per WU BEST PPD WORST PPD
All OS AVG 61 223,899 2.13 11 hrs 18 mins 105,357 259,167 194,055
Linux 2 222,156 1.81 13 hrs 14 mins 122,515 223,882 220,431
Windows 59 223,958 2. 14 11 hrs 14 mins 104,775 259,167 194,055

12 WEEK AVG PPD CHANGE VS. WORK UNITS AVAILABLE — GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM

GPU PPD average changes week to week for a number of reasons such as credit for type of projects/causes available, varience in work unit difficulty, OS/GPU drivers, folding cores, GPU models, clocks, power targets etc.

The chart below serves as a way to see historical week to week performance change as PPD for a GPU is never a constant, as the work units processed are always changing.

12 WEEK RESEARCH CAUSE ALLOCATION — GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM

Average PPD is impacted by the types of research work units being done. The following shows the work unit allocation of causes being worked on in the past 12 weeks for the GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM.

GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM kWh POWER CONSUMPTION & COST

Power consumption information for the GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM is based on an average wattage taken from
vendor information for the lowest and highest power draws for the GPU under folding@home compute loads.

Wattage information is only for the GPU and does not include the host computers power usage.

GPU Power Draw
Watts — TDP 		Daily Power Usage
kWh 		Points per
kWh 		Daily Cost at $0.10
per kWh 		Power Cost
per 1m Points
170 W 4.08 kWh 54,877 $0.41 $1.822

GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM COMPUTE
VS kWH USAGE
DAY, MONTH, WEEK & YEAR

Folding@Home compute projections for the GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM can be used to help inform long term point goals and related costs based on 24/7 usage.

Duration Nick Name Points
Average 		Work Units
Average 		Power Usage
kWh 		Power Cost
at $0.10 per kWh
Day PPD 223,899 2.13 4. 08 kWh $0.41
Week PPW 1,567,293 14.88 28.56 kWh $2.86
Month PPM 6,810,261 64.64 124.10 kWh $12.41
Year PPY 81,723,135 775.68 1489.20 kWh $148.92

5 BEST PPD RESEARCH PROJECTS — GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM

The following data is the average PPD values for GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM project work units based on multiple samples collected via the use of our Folding@Home dark mode web client.

PPD
Rank		 Project
ID 		Cause
Research 		PPD
Average 		Points WU
Average 		WUs Day
Average 		WU Time
Average
1 13445 covid-19 251,006 11,805 21.26 1 hrs 8 mins
2 18201 alzheimers 245,137 161,554 1. 52 16 hrs 49 mins
3 16479 cancer 241,390 164,441 1.47 16 hrs 21 mins
4 18117 cancer 240,645 55,008 4.37 5 hrs 29 mins
5 17433 myosins 222,156 122,515 1.81 13 hrs 14 mins

5 LOWEST PPD RESEARCH PROJECTS — GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM

The following data is the average PPD values for GeForce GTX 670/GTX 760Ti OEM project work units based on multiple samples collected via the use of our Folding@Home dark mode web client.

PPD
Rank		 Project
ID 		Cause
Research 		PPD
Average 		Points WU
Average 		WUs Day
Average 		WU Time
Average
1 17806 cancer 195,655 62,990 3. 11 8 hrs 44 mins
2 17804 cancer 195,734 77,390 2.53 9 hrs 29 mins
3 18110 cancer 215,070 86,767 2.48 10 hrs 41 mins
4 17433 myosins 222,156 122,515 1.81 13 hrs 14 mins
5 18117 cancer 240,645 55,008 4.37 5 hrs 29 mins

GPU Compare | Graphics Card Comparison


The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti will run 100% of the top 10,000 PC games. It will also run 100% of these games at the recommended or best experience levels.

Manufacturer



NVIDIA



Generation


1 generation old


Category


Enthusiast


Dedicated RAM


24 GB


DirectX


12


Rank


99th percentile of NVIDIA GPUs

Rank in Power


1st of NVIDIA GPUs

Rank in Popularity


170th of NVIDIA GPUs



Can the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti run the Top PC games? You can see a GPU comparison by choosing another video card. How many games can your GPU run?









































































































GeForce RTX 3090 Ti


Choose Another…


Radeon RX 6950 XT


Choose Another…


Rank Game



Min


Rec



Min


Rec

1
Cyberpunk 2077

2
Grand Theft Auto V

3
FIFA 23

4
VALORANT

5
Elden Ring

6
Call of Duty: Warzone

7
Red Dead Redemption 2

8
Need for Speed Heat

9
Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered

10
Fortnite

11
Minecraft

12
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II

13
League of Legends

14
God of War

15
FIFA 22

16
Genshin Impact

17
Apex Legends

18
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

19
Forza Horizon 5

20
ARK: Survival Evolved

21
The Sims 4

22
PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS

23
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

24
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

25
Phasmophobia

26
Overwatch 2

27
Far Cry 6

28
Battlefield 2042

29
Dying Light 2 Stay Human

30
Grounded

31
Battlefield 1

32
Overwatch

33
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey

34
Assassin’s Creed: Origins

35
Kena: Bridge of Spirits

36
Rust

37
Grand Theft Auto IV

38
Call of Duty: WW2

39
Forza Horizon 4

40
Destiny 2

41
Hogwarts Legacy

42
Dota 2

43
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

44
GTA 5 Thor Mod

45
Call of Duty: Black Ops II

46
Slime Rancher 2

47
Assassin’s Creed Unity

48
Battlefield 4

49
Fortnite: Battle Royale

50
Rocket League

51
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

52
Battlefield 5

53
Fallout 4

54
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege

55
Escape from Tarkov

56
Call of Duty: Black Ops III

57
Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag

58
Far Cry 3

59
eFootball 2022

60
Valheim

61
Hearts of Iron IV

62
Dark Souls 3

63
PUBG Lite

64
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020

65
Sea of Thieves

66
Far Cry 4

67
World of Warcraft

68
Dying Light

69
Warframe

70
GTA 5 Premium Online Edition

71
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

72
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

73
Assassin’s Creed II

74
Far Cry 5

75
Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout

76
Euro Truck Simulator 2

77
Watch Dogs

78
Batman: Arkham Knight

79
Watch Dogs 2

80
Dead by Daylight

81
SEKIRO: SHADOWS DIE TWICE

82
FIFA 19

83
Age of Empires 4

84
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4

85
FIFA 17

86
The Forest

87
Lost Ark

88
WARZONE

89
Project Zomboid

90
CS:GO — Operation Riptide

91
Assassin’s Creed III

92
Assassin’s Creed Syndicate

93
Monster Hunter: World

94
Need for Speed Payback

95
Stray

96
World War 3

97
Forza Horizon 3

98
Assassin’s Creed Rogue

99
Call of Duty: Vanguard

100
eFootball PES 2021



AMD

NVIDIA

Intel





Rank GPU
   

GeForce GTX 760 v testu: Výkon GTX 670 za šest tisíc (a něco)

Nvidia GeForce GTX 760: představení a parametry

GeForce GTX 760 je dalším přírůstkem do už celkem velké rodiny karet postavených na grafickém čipu GK104. Ta už čítá modely GeForce GTX 660 Ti, GeForce GTX 670, GeForce GTX 680 a GeForce GTX 770.

Jádro má aktivních 1152 stream procesorů, což je ve srovnání se všemi dosud uvedenými modely nejméně. Snížený je i počet texturovacích jednotek na 96. Rasterizační jednotky jsou ale v plném počtu. Ve srovnání s GeForce GTX 670 je tedy konfigurace jádra slabší, částečně to ale kompenzují vyšší takty GPU.

 

Na rozdíl od GTX 770, která dostala rychlejší 7GHz paměti, je GTX 760 osazená „jen“ 6GHz pamětmi GDDR5 stejně jako většina rychlejších GeForce 600 z minulé generace. Paměťová sběrnice má obdobně jako ostatní karty s GK104 s výjimkou GTX 660 Ti šířku plnohodnotných 256b. Znamená to, že by se měly prodávat karty osazené převážně 2 GB paměti GDDR5, nejspíš se ale objeví i pár 4GB modelů.

  GeForce
GTX 580		 GeForce
GTX 660		 GeForce
GTX 670		 GeForce
GTX 760		 GeForce
GTX 680		 GeForce
GTX 770		 GeForce
GTX 780
Jádro GF110 GK106 GK104 GK104 GK104 GK104 GK110
Výrobní proces 40 nm 28 nm 28 nm 28 nm 28 nm 28 nm 28 nm
Velikost jádra ~520 mm² 221 mm² 294 mm² 294 mm² 294 mm² 294 mm² 561 mm²
Tranzistorů 3,2 mld. 2,54 mld. 3,54 mld. 3,54 mld. 3,54 mld. 3,54 mld. 7,1 mld.
Stream procesorů 512 960 1344 1152 1536 1536 2304
Takt jádra 772 MHz 980 MHz 915 MHz 980 MHz 1006 MHz 1046 MHz 863 MHz
Takt SP 1544 MHz 980 MHz 915 MHz 980 MHz 1006 MHz 1046 MHz 863 MHz
Takt s boost   1033 MHz 980 MHz 1033 MHz 1058 MHz 1085 MHz 900 MHz
ROP/RBE 48 24 32 32 32 32 48
Texturovacích jedn. 64 80 112 96 128 128 192
Paměť 1536 MB GDDR5 2048 MB GDDR5 2048 MB GDDR5 2048 MB
4096 MB GDDR5		 2048 MB GDDR5 2048 MB
4096 MB GDDR5		 3072 MB GDDR5
Takt pamětí 4008 MHz 6008 MHz 6008 MHz 6008 MHz 6008 MHz 7010 MHz 6008 MHz
Šířka sběrnice 384 b 192 b 256 b 256 b 256 b 256 b 384 b
Propustnost pamětí 192,4 GB/s 144,2 GB/s 192,3 GB/s 192,26 GB/s 192,3 GB/s 224,3 GB/s 288,4 GB/s
Fillrate (pixely) 37,1 Gpx/s 23,5 Gpx/s 29,3 Gpx/s 31,36 Gpx/s 32,2 Gpx/s 33,4 Gpx/s 41,4 Gpx/s
Fillrate (textury) 49,4 Gtx/s 78,4 Gtx/s 102,5 Gtx/s 94,1 Gtx/s 128,5 Gtx/s 133,9 Gtx/s 165,7 Gtx/s
FLOPS (SP) 1,582 1,881 2,46 2,26 3,09 3,21 3,98
Max. spotřeba 244 W 140 W 170 W 170 W 195 W 230 W 250 W
Délka karty 27 cm 23 cm 24,5 cm 24,5 cm 25,5 cm 26,5 cm 26,5 cm
Shader model 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

 

Dnes se podíváme na kartu v referenčním provedení přímo od Nvidie. Design karty se navenek téměř neliší od referenční GeForce GTX 670, schází jen zvýraznění některých prvků zelenou barvou. Na krytu karty není dokonce ani logo, které má výrobce na vlastních produktových fotografiích.

Samotný plošný spoj je výrazně kratší než celá karta, má jen 17,5 cm. Karta je ale o dost delší, má lehce přes 24 cm. Konstruktéři totiž kartu vzadu nastavili plastovým dílem, aby bylo vůbec kam upevnit radiální ventilátor. Podobně jako u GTX 670 bohužel funguje trochu jako zesilovač vrčícího motorku.

Konektory přídavného napájení jsou v samém růžku plošného spoje, protože je ale kvůli krytu podstatně delší, vychází jejich umístění nezvykle jen kousek od středu karty. Obdobně jako u GTX 670 jde o dva šestipiny, které spolu se slotem PCIe podle specifikací teoreticky stačí na spotřebu až 225 W. TDP karty je ale výrazně nižší – 170 W.

Protože je kryt chladiče přichycený jen pár šrouby přímo k plošnému spoji, dá se sundat i bez demontáže pasivu (a porušení původní pasty), takže nakoukneme dovnitř.

Pod ním se ale stejně žádné velké překvapení nekoná, na plošném spoji ani chladiči nejsou vidět žádné větší rozdíly, snad kromě jediného – zatímco u GTX 670 se žebrování pasivu vlnilo jako had, u GTX 760 už jsou žebra docela rovná.

Pasiv je z jednoho kusu hliníku a je vyrobený dost netradičně (detaily jsou nafocené v recenzi GTX 670), jediným luxusnějším prvkem je na něm tenká měděná destička nad jádrem, která pomáhá lépe rozvádět teplo po základně.

Za chladičem GPU je ještě menší hliníkový pasiv, který pomáhá chladit napěťové regulátory.

Poslední zastávku uděláme u výstupních konektorů, i u nich se karta drží tradičního uspořádání – 1× Dual-link DVI-I, 1× Dual-link DVI-D, 1× HDMI a 1× DisplayPort 1.2. Zapojit lze až čtyři monitory v uspořádání 3+1 (trojici DVI-I, DVI-D a HDMI lze nastavit tak, aby ji hry braly jako spojitou plochu).

Testovací sestava, metodika

Testovací sestava

Jako testovací platforma posloužila základní deska Gigabyte X79-UD5 s BIOSem F10. Procesor je šestijádrový Core i7-3960X s TDP 130 W, který je přetaktovaný na 4,2 GHz při 1,36 V. Asistuje mu 16GB kit operačních paměti DDR3 od Kingstonu.

  • základní deska: Gigabyte X79-UD5
  • procesor: Core i7-3960X (deaktivovaný HTT, C1E, EIST), 4,2 GHz na 1,36 V
  • chladič CPU: Noctua NH-D14
  • paměti: 4× 4 GB Kingston DDR3 KHX2133C11D3K4/16GX
  • zdroj: Enermax Revolution 85 ERV920EWT-00, 920 W
  • pevný disk: Intel SSD 510 (250 GB)
  • skříň: Gelid DarkForce
  • operační systém: Windows 7 x64

Testy hlučnosti

Hlučnost grafických karet měřím samostatně na speciální sestavě, která vznikla jen kvůli tomuto účelu. Podrobnosti o ní najdete v článku Ze zákulisí: nové sestavy pro měření grafik a hlučnosti. Sestava je osazená SSD, o chlazení dvoujádrového Athlonu se stará chladič Noctua NH-C14, která během měření hlučnosti chladí procesor jen pasivně. Jediným aktivním zdrojem hluku u sestavy při měření je tak tichý zdroj Enermax s ventilátorem běžícím na přibližně 600 ot./min. Abych hluk jeho ventilátoru co nejvíc izoloval od grafické karty, je záměrně umístěný až za základní deskou.

Při měření na grafické kartě nastavím otáčky, které jsem zjistil ze zátěžových testů naměřených na herní sestavě a změřím samostatně hlučnost grafické karty. Protože je většina karet (hlavně bez zátěže) tišší než samotná testovací sestava pro měření výkonu, je to jediná možnost, jak se vyhnout zkreslení výsledků systémovými ventilátory a ostatními aktivními prvky chlazení.

Ovladače a karty pro srovnání

Ve srovnání najdete karty, které jste mohli vidět v recenzích na Extrahardware.cz. Na jakých ovladačích byla karta testovaná zjistíte z podrobnějších informací, které se zobrazí v rámečku v grafech po najetí na příslušný datový pruh.

V porovnání najdete Radeon HD 7970 s taktem 1100/6000 MHz. Jde o referenční kartu z první várky, která je na dané frekvence přetaktovaná (limit PowerTune byl nastavený na +20 %, a kvůli stabilitě bylo napětí GPU zvýšené na 1,2 V). Karta se při tomto nastavení vůbec nepodtaktovávala, může být tedy i výkonnější než reálný Radeon s obdobnými takty, u kterého do výkonu bude zasahovat řízení spotřeby PowerTune a automatické přetaktování PowerTune Boost.

 

 

Aliens vs. Predator, Battlefield 3

Aliens vs. Predator

Scénu z úvodu hry jsme nově nahradili samostatným benchmarkem, který je na internetu k dispozici ke stažení zdarma. Běží v režimu DirectX 11 a je o poznání náročnější než náš původní test.

Pro snadnější testování existuje utilita AvP benchmark tool, tu stačí nastavit takto a spustit test:

 

Battlefield 3

Battlefield testuji s maximální úrovní detailů, výjimkou je pouze deaktivované vyhlazování MSAA, který kvůli náročnosti enginu zvládají rozumně jen nejvýkonnější karty. Vyhlazuje se tedy pouze pomocí FXAA. Testuje se 70 s dlouhý úsek po začátku druhé mise Operation Swordbreaker po vystoupení z transportéru.

Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2

Crysis Warhead

K otestování výkonu v Crysis: Warhead používám utilitu Framebuffer Crysis Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.31. Aby bylo měření kompatibilní s ověřovaným (ranked) benchmarkem, nechávám volbu na mapě ambush a implicitním čase (v tomto případě noc). Používám rozhraní DirectX 10 a zkouším jak nastavení Gamer (hráč, odpovídá detailům high v původním Crysis), tak Enthusiast (very high). Beru výsledek druhého měření, kdy už je hra načtena v paměti. Měření jsou opakovatelná s minimální odchylkou.

Crysis 2

V prvních dvou grafech je v singleplayeru měřeno prvních 60 sekund z mapy Alien Vessel, ve druhém pak 105 s z mapy City Hall.

 

 

 

Metro 2033

Testování v Metro 2033 doznalo oproti dřívější metodice jednu podstatnou změnu. Hru už netestuji ručně, ale pomocí vestavěného benchmarku.

Nastavení odpovídá velkému srovnání 16 grafických karet. Testuji v nabízené lokaci Frontline. V Metro 2033 netestuji nejnáročnější nastavení, jak již psal ve velkém srovnání 16 karet Mirek, MSAA je spíše na škodu (ve hře rozmazává tak, jakoby šlo o nějaký postprocessing filtr a ne běžný multi-sampling) a tudíž používám pro změnu zase skoro neznatelné AAA. Vypnuta je výkon neskutečným způsobem žeroucí funkce DOF (Depth Of Field, hloubka ostrosti), jelikož to podle diskuzních fór nejspíše pro hratelné snímkové frekvence udělá většina lidí.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat Benchmark, World in Conflict

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat Benchmark

Nastavení testu je shodné s předcházející metodikou, liší se pouze v tom, že už nadále testuji pouze dvě náročnější nastavení.

Pro testování této moderními technologiemi nabité hry používám samostatný benchmark. V něm pak celkové nastavení Ultra, Enhan. full dynamic lighting s MSAA for A-teste objects (anti-aliasing transparentních textur), SSAO Mode nastaveným na HDAO, kvalitou na Ultra (verze Compute Shader), zaplou teselací i CHS (Contact hardening shadows).

World in Conflict

Testuji s upraveným profilem very high details. Navíc jsem zapínám water reflects clouds (voda odráží oblaka) a anizotropní filtrování navýšil na 16×. Používám vestavěný benchmark.

Chování GPU Boost 2.0, Crysis

Malý pasiv má zřejmě podíl na tom, že se grafický čip velice rychle po spuštění zátěže (už po půl minutě) se dostal přes cílových 80 °C a automatika hned a docela výrazně snížila takty. Z maximálních 1123 skočila na pár sekund na 1084 a následně na 1045 MHz. Po vyrovnání otáček ventilátoru a teploty se frekvence na delší dobu zvedla na 1058 MHz. Když se teplota zvedla zase o kousek nahoru, regulace přidala na otáčkách ventilátoru a po korekci teplot následně ještě zvedla frekvenci o jeden stupeň na 1071 MHz, na kterých už se karta ustálila.

S výjimkou úvodní půlminuty byla po celou dobu regulace limitována teplotou.

Chování GPU Boost 2.0, Aliens vs Predator

V Aliens vs Predators se (v menší míře) opakuje situace z Crysis, v úvodu karta běží na 1123 MHz a je limitována napětím GPU. Po zahřátí pasivu dochází k výraznějšímu snížení taktů, a karta zvolna zvedá otáčky ventilátoru. Jakmile si ventilátor udrží vyšší výkon, takt GPU se ještě mírně zvedne.

Na průměrné snímkové frekvence to ale dramatický vliv nemá, výsledky z jednotlivých průběhů jsou následující:

  • 55,9 fps
  • 55,1 fps
  • 55,1 fps
  • 55,1 fps
  • 55,3 fps
  • 55,4 fps

Přetaktování, spotřeba (příkon),

Přetaktování

Při automatickém přetaktování kartu omezoval limit teploty 80 °C. Maximum, na které se po zvednutí offsetu karta dostala, bylo 1176 MHz, s větším offsetem už Crysis spadl.

Po zvýšení hodnoty na 90 °C se frekvence GPU zastavila na 1124 MHz, při kterých se karta dostala na limit napájecího napětí 1,2 V (i s tímto nastavením si mimochodem udržela teplotu 84 °C s ventilátorem na 2600 ot. /min). S vyšším napětím už karta dvě minuty snesla i oněch 1124 MHz s offsetem až 169 MHz (což dá 1293 MHz).

S GPU na ~1230 MHz jsem vyzkoušel taktování pamětí, artefakty se po chvíli objevily až s Memory Clock Boost na 650 MHz (to je nárůst frekvence asi o 1300 MHz efektivně na ~ 7300 MHz).

Crysis jsem nechal chvíli běžet s kombinací GPU na 1267 MHz při 1,2 V a s pamětmi na 7182 MHz. Snímková frekvence v Crysis se oproti standardnímu nastavení zvedla ze 45 na 51 fps (berte to ale jen pro velmi hrubou orientaci, pro přesnější představu o nárůstu je třeba otestovat více her, protože se nárůst liší titul od titulu a může se pohybovat v rozmezí pěti procent z celkového výkonu).

Spotřeba GeForce GTX 760

Spotřeba bez zátěže ničím nevybočuje od ostatních modelů. V zátěži patří mezi porovnávanými kartami k těm nejnižším, musím ale upozornit, že kartu brzdil teplotní limit. Jaké byly špičky předtím, než došlo k podtaktování, je vidět v grafech s průběhem spotřeby v Crysis.

Ani po zahřátí při přetaktování na výše uvedených 1267/7182 MHz ale nešla spotřeba PC přes 340 W.

Měření spotřeby

Protože nás zajímají především rozdíly mezi jednotlivými kartami, pro zmenšení chyby měření a snížení vlivu procesoru jsou u sestavy deaktivované úsporné funkce procesoru (ten je navíc přetaktovaný). To kdybyste se divili, proč se jinde dostávají k hodnotám kolem 60 W, zatímco naše sestava jde daleko přes 100 W. Samotná sestava bez grafické karty by měla mít bez zátěže spotřebu kolem 115 W.

Spotřeba v úsporném režimu monitoru

Tady Radeony vítězí zásluhou technologie ZeroCore, ve kterém by jejich spotřeba měla být nižší než 3 W. Záměrně říkám že měla, protože s přibývajícími kartami a při rozdílech mezi Radeony je zřejmé, že se všechny Radeony do deklarovaného 3W limitu v ZeroCore vejít nemohly.

Spotřeba ve Windows

Následuje spotřeba počítače při nečinnosti, kdy je zobrazená pracovní plocha systému. Tam je spotřeba karty o malinko vyšší, pohybujeme se ale na rozdílech v řádech jednotek Wattů, které jsou jen o málo větší než chyba měření.

Spotřeba při intenzivní zátěži v Crysis

V následujícím grafu je spotřeba sestavy v náročné statické scéně v Crysis. Grafické karty v ní dosahují o poznání vyšší spotřeby než při běžném hraní, snad se dá říci, že má blízko k maximální hodnotám, na které se ve hrách běžně vůbec dá u grafické karty dostat.

Nejde o jednu špičkovou hodnotu, kterou zaznamenal wattmetr, jak se to často pro usnadnění v testech měří, ale o průměrnou hodnotu zaznamenávanou zhruba po dobu jedné minuty po 10–30 minutách stejné zátěže, kdy se dostatečně prohřeje chladič karty i samotná sestava a teplota grafického jádra i spotřeba se ustálí.

Při běžném hraní, kde není grafické jádro tolik vytížené a karty se tak nezahřívají, bývají rozdíly menší. Obzvlášť to platí, když grafickou kartu brzdí procesor.

Zejména 28nm Radeonům příliš nesvědčí vyšší teploty, na které se karty v testovací scéně v Crysis zahřívají, počítejte s tím, že při běžném hraní, kde takovou scénou jen proběhnete, na tom budou ve srovnání s Geforce líp.

Některé karty už jsou bohužel rozebírané, takže už nemají původní pastu.

V následujícím grafu je vypočtený poměr výkon/watt ze stejné scény. Číslo je to jen přibližné, vychází z odhadované spotřeby karty (tu jsem dostal odečtením spotřeby sestavy s jedním zatíženým jádrem od spotřeby celé sestavy) a vyjadřuje, kolik W si vyžádá jeden snímek za sekundu. Nižší hodnoty jsou lepší . Opět připomínám, že jde o situaci při intenzivním vytížení grafické karty náročnou scénou a v méně náročných situacích jsou rozdíly menší.

Teploty, otáčky ventilátoru, hlučnost

Teplota GeForce GTX 770

U teplot také není co řešit, bez zátěže je naprosto v pořádku, přičemž regulace zbytečně neroztáčí ventilátor, v zátěži se výjimečně přehoupla přes 80 na 81 °C, což regulace vzápětí stáhla na 80 °C.

 

Otáčky ventilátoru

Protože ne všechny karty používají stejně koncipované chladiče a zejména stejně velké a stejně výkonné ventilátory, nemá samotné porovnávání otáček ventilátorů valný význam. Údaje v tomto grafu jsou pouze informativní na doplnění ke grafům hlučnosti.

Ještě dodám, že obecně jsou radiální (odstředivé) ventilátory s lopatkami po obvodu, které se běžně používají u výkonnějších referenčních karet, výrazně hlučnější než chladiče s axiálními ventilátory.

Karty s jedním ventilátorem bávají při stejných otáčkách tišší než karty se dvěma obdobnými ventilátory – důvodem nemusí být jen vyšší průtok vzduchu, ale i interference obou ventilátorů, kvůli níž mohou otáčky ventilátorů i hluk kolísat, což člověk vnímá hůř než stabilní hladinu hluku.

Ventilátor Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

Chladič je stejný jako u GeForce GTX 670, obdobné bude i hodnocení. A je zbytečné tomu přikládat velkou váhu, protože karty v referenčním provedení budou spíše raritou.

Bez zátěže běží ventilátor na slabých 1050 ot./min, v zátěži se otáčky dostaly kousek pod 2200 ot./min, což odpovídá 62 % výkonu. S manuálním zvedáním výkonu ventilátoru jdou otáčky nahoru až do 100 %, maximum je na 3540 ot. /min.

Hlučnost Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Bez zátěže by karta byla při 1050 otáčkách ventilátoru celkem tichá nebýt vrčení motorku. Se zvýšením otáček se vrčení zmírnilo a nastoupil spíš aerodynamický hluk. Karta není nijak extrémně hlučná (zejména s přihlédnutím k tomu, že jde o radiální ventilátor).

Ale chválit ji za to, že je tichá, nemůžu, některé grafiky s axiálními ventilátory prostě dokážou být i s výrazně vyšším výkonem a spotřebou mnohem tišší.

Cena a shrnutí výkonu

Ceny

Ceny jsou vybrané z některých velkých českých počítačovch e-shopů (Alfa Computer, Alza, Czech Computer), jde pokud možno o nejlevnější dostupné modely. Karty, které se už neprodávají, mají poslední ceny, za které byly k mání.

Protože cenu hledáme především kvůli porovnání poměru cena/výkon s nejvýhodnějšími kartami, které jsou ve stejnou dobu dostupné, nemusí odpovídat konkrétním testovaným modelům, ale může jít o levnější kartu na obdobných taktech.

 

Průměrný výkon

U každé hry počítáme celkový průměr ze všech měření, který následně započítáváme do celkového průměru. Každá hra je tedy v celkovém výsledku započtena stejnou vahou. Protože porovnáváme nejvýkonnější karty, z celkového průměru jsem tam, kde u her testujeme více nastavení detailů (nemyslím tím rozlišení), vypustil méně náročná nastavení, která používáme pro porovnávání slabších karet.

Jako základ, od kterého se počítá výkon dalších karet, slouží vždy nejvyšší skóre dosažené u všech testovaných karet.

U nejvýkonnějších karet musím upozornit na to, že v některých testech už dochází k horšímu škálování – karty  už nejspíš brzdí výkon procesoru.

Poměr cena/výkon

Poměr cena/výkon je výborný, jedna z mála karet, která to nové GeForce kazí, je Radeon HD 7870 XT. Ale tam za ušetřenou pětistovku a přívětivý poměr cena/výkon zaplatíte mnohem vyšší spotřebou.

Závěrečné shrnutí

Závěrečné shrnutí

GeForce GTX 760 asi všechny příjemně překvapila především cenou – s přihlédnutím k tomu, že nabízí jen o málo nižší výkon než GTX 670 (a rozdíl bez nadsázky setře jen to, když přidáte pár procent na výkonu ventilátoru nebo zvednete limit teploty o 4 °C). Přitom je i po slevách GTX 670 o více než tisíc korun levnější.

Referenční karta je nastavená obdobně jako jiné modely v referenčním provedení s GPU Boost 2.0 – takty i regulaci řídí automatika na cílovou teplotu a karta jí běžně dosahuje. U dříve uvedených modelů to znamenalo především nižší takty (a nižší spotřebu) než u následně uvedených nereferenčních karet. A není důvod domnívat se, že by tomu u GTX 760 bylo jinak. Na rozdíl od GTX Titan nebo GTX 780 ale v cenících moc referenčních karet asi nenajdeme.

 1/34 

Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

 

Co se konkurence týká, aktuálně je jedinou kartou s obdobným výkonem a o něco lepší cenou Radeon HD 7870 XT, který ale rozhodně není masovou záležitostí, modely postavené na Tahiti LE jsou spíše raritou.

GTX 760 můžeme i v referenční podobě označit za kartu s vynikajícím poměrem cena/výkon a dostupnou cenou, přičemž se nemusíte bát, že byste museli ve hrách příliš snižovat nastavení detailů.

Momentálně bude asi nejzajímavější sledovat, jak se k novince Nvidie postaví AMD. Mainstreamová karta od společnosti vyrábějící grafiky do mobilů, která ohrožuje pozici druhého nejvýkonnějšího akcelerátoru s jedním GPU od společnosti vyrábějící grafiky pro herní konzole a našlapaná herní PC, si už nějakou (jinou) reakci zaslouží.

Ve srovnání nám ještě chybí HD 7950 s PowerTune Boost, mé snahy o získání exempláře na otestování zatím nepadly na úrodnou půdu. Při stávajících cenách HD 7950 už se ale stejně zdráhám označit ji za přímou konkurenci pro GTX 760, uvidíme, co se bude s jejich cenou dít dál.

Jistě, opět je tu u Radeonů přidaná hodnota v podobě balíčku her Never Settle, Nvidia zase kontruje snahou usnadnit uživatelům život (GeForce Experience) a dát jimekosystém nabízející něco navíc (PhysX, 3D Vision, výhledově Shield).

Na definitivní ortel nad GTX 760 a ocenění karet si ještě počkáte, s testy jsme teprve na začátku a prověřili jsme asi nejhorší možný scénář, který může nastat – kartu v referenčním provedení, na základních taktech a se slabounkým a jednoduchým chladičem.  

Testy dalších karet, které máme v redakci, budou následovat:

MSI GeForce GTX 760 Gaming

 

EVGA GeForce GTX 760 Superclocked

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 760 Windforce 3X

Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

+ cena
+ výkon
+ poměr cena/výkon
+ spotřeba
+ bez zátěže neslyšná, v není příliš hlučná
+ rezerva pro přetaktování

± bohaté možnosti nastavení, říká si o vyladění na míru

− primitivní chladič brzdící výkon
− složitější přetaktování
− kvůli GPU Boost 2.0 hodně závislá na nastavení systémového chlazení

80MHz vs 915MHz

  • 52MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
    1032MHz vs 980MHz

    • 0.2 TFLOPS above FLOPS?
      2.46 TFLOPS vs 2.26 TFLOPS
    • 2.1 GPixel/s higher pixel rate? higher number of textured pixels?
      102 GTexels/s vs 94. 1 GTexels/s
    • 192 more stream processors?
      1344 vs 1152
    • 16 more texture units (TMUs)?
      112 vs 96
    • 313 higher PassMark score (G3D)?
      5366 vs 5053
    • 1 supports more GPUs?
      3 vs 2

    Which comparisons are the most popular?

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce 940MX

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

    Nvidia GeForce AMD Radeon RX 550

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    AMD Radeon Vega 8

    0003

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    AMD Radeon HD 7850

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    AMD Radeon RX 550

    AMD Radeon RX 550

    0003

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce MX330

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 DDR4

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 960

    Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    vs

    AMD Radeon R9 390

    04 When the GPU is running below its limits, it may jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

    3.pixel rate

    23.5 GPixel/s

    25.6 GPixel/s

    The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    4.flops

    2.26 TFLOPS

    2.46 TFLOPS

    FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.

    5. texture size

    94.1 GTexels/s

    102 GTexels/s

    The number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    6.GPU memory speed

    1502MHz

    1502MHz

    Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.

    7.shading patterns

    Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.

    8.textured units (TMUs)

    TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.

    9 ROPs

    ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.

    Memory

    1.memory effective speed

    6008MHz

    6008MHz

    The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.

    2.max memory bandwidth

    192.2GB/s

    192GB/s

    This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

    3.VRAM

    VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

    4.memory bus width

    256bit

    256bit

    Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.

    5.versions of GDDR memory

    Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.

    6. Supports memory debug code

    ✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

    Functions

    1.DirectX version

    DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

    2nd version of OpenGL

    The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

    OpenCL version 3.

    Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.

    4. Supports multi-monitor technology

    ✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.

    5.GPU Temperature at Boot

    Lower boot temperature means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.

    6.supports ray tracing

    ✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.

    7. Supports 3D

    ✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).

    8.supports DLSS

    ✖Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI-based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.

    9. PassMark result (G3D)

    This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.

    Ports

    1.has HDMI output

    ✔Gainward GeForce GTX 760

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

    Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to the connected display.

    2.HDMI connectors

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Gainward GeForce GTX 760)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 670)

    More HDMI connections allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.

    HDMI version 3

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Gainward GeForce GTX 760)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 670)

    Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth for higher resolutions and frame rates.

    4. DisplayPort outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.

    5.DVI outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DVI.

    6.mini DisplayPort outputs

    Allows connection to a display using mini DisplayPort.

    Price Match

    Cancel

    Which graphics cards are better?

    Radeon R9 280 vs GeForce GTX 960 comparison.

    Which video card is better?

    Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and AMD Radeon R9 280X video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support. Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T -Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

    VS

    AMD Radeon R9 280X

    Advantages

    Choose NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX

    • Novaya Video, 4 MEEAR dates (S) 4 MONTH.
    • About 15% more core clock: 1127 MHz vs 980 MHz
    • 14% more core clock in Boost mode: 1178 MHz vs 1033 MHz
    • 7% more shader processors: 1024 vs 960
    • Floating point performance 22% more: 2.413 gflops vs 1.981 gflops
    • About 17% less power consumption: 120 Watt vs 140 Watt
    • About 17% more memory frequency: 7.0 GB/s vs 6.0 GB/s
    • About 53% more performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 6014 vs 3934
    • Approximately 45% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 651 vs 448
    • 2x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 20885 vs 10438
    • Performance in CompuBench — Faceion 1.5 Desktop Detection 1.5 (mPixels/s) 2.4 times bigger: 73.814 vs 30.505
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) approximately 12% faster: 792.44 vs 705.293
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) approximately 59% faster: 4.888 vs 3.08
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 2x more performance: 200. 825 vs 62.69
    • 2x more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark : 7218 vs 3581
    • 2x more performance in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7218 vs 3581
    • About 75% more performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score: 2309 vs 1320
    characteristics
    Date of release 22 January 2015 VS 6 September 2012
    Frequencies34
    PassMark — G2D Mark 651 vs 448
    Geekbench — OpenCL 20885 vs 10438
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 73.814 vs 30.505
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 792.44 vs 705.293
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 4.888 vs 3.08
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash /s) 200. 825 vs 62.69
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 7218 vs 3581
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3691 vs 3690
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen ( Fps) 7218 vs 3581
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3691 vs 3690
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 2309 vs 1320
    GPU 1 20885 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) GPU 1 73.814

    30.505
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/ s) GPU 1 792.44

    705.293
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) GPU 1 4.888 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) GPU 1 35. 338

    35.416
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) GPU 1 200.825 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) GPU 1 7218 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) GPU 1 3691 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) PassMark — G3D Mark 6014 3934 PassMark — G2D Mark 651 448 Geekbench — OpenCL 20885 10438 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 73.814 30.505 0470

    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 4.888 3.08 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 35.338 35.416 CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 200.825 62.69 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 7218 3581 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3691 3690 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3335 6694 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 7218 3581 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3691 3690 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3335 6694 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 2309 1320

    General comparison

    Game performance , Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

    960 and Radeon R9 285 now cost exactly what potential owners are willing to pay for them. These are quite suitable solutions that can provide a comfortable level of performance in games with high graphics quality in 1920×1080 mode.

    When the resolution is increased to 2560×1440, the power ratio of both video cards remains virtually unchanged. The assumption that the GTX 960 with a 128-bit bus will noticeably lose ground in this case is not confirmed. In such a situation, the Radeon R9 has a minimal advantage.285, but in general, neither one nor the other video card allows you to get an acceptable number of frames / s at a resolution of 2560 × 1440 without reducing the quality of the picture. Don’t rely too much on overclocking. 10-15% is not the productivity gain that will allow you to radically change the situation. Yes, in some cases additional frames / c will be appropriate, but nothing more. For this mode, video cards of a higher class are required.

    In general, we have a situation in which even an emotional purchase under the influence of personal preferences will ultimately be fully justified. GeForce GTX

    GTX 770 and GTX 760 competitors discontinued by nVidia, namely the GeForce GTX 680, GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 660 Ti chipsets. And strangely enough, 680/670/760 video cards can be considered as one line with a 256-bit memory bus and the same memory bandwidth: 192.2Gb/s (GDDR5 memory runs at 6008MHz). Number of stream processors respectively for 680/670/760: 1536/1344/1152 (as tests have shown, even doubling the number of stream processors does not bring as much speed as expected), clock speeds (without Boost) 1006/915/980MHz. In various gaming tests, as well as CUDA, the GeForce GTX 760 falls behind the GeForce GTX 670 and outperforms the GeForce GTX 660 Ti. But for example, in Adobe Premiere Pro CC, the GeForce GTX 760 video card has every chance to show no less performance than the more expensive GeForce GTX 670. Firstly, the fact that the GTX 670 has slightly more stream processors: 1344 vs. low clock speeds 915/980MHz vs 980/1033MHz and same memory bandwidth 192. 2Gb / s plays a more significant role. Video card support has been added in drivers starting from version 320.49WHQL (it is worth noting that the drivers are a bit raw and even the Gainward GeForce GTX 660 2048MB GDDR5 in a number of tests showed a slightly better result in a number of tests on the previous driver version 320.18WHQL). So, in the nearest Internet store, a Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD video card was purchased, the site did not indicate what revision it was, but judging by the reviews there, assorted, they can bring both the first and the second. Detailed specifications of the Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD video card can be found here. Proprietary cooling system: WINDFORCE 3X with three 75mm axial fans. Two aluminum fin cassettes connected to each other by two 8mm direct contact copper heatpipes. Photo clickable:

    Memory chips are not soldered on the reverse side of the video card (apparently the place is reserved for the 4GB version of the video card). The photo is clickable:

    The revision of the video card 2. 0, instead of three, has two copper heat pipes:

    Two power connectors 6-pin and 8-pin, versus one 6-pin for the GeForce GTX 660, and this is with a TDP difference of only 30W. We remind you that a 6-pin connector delivers 75W, and an 8-pin connector delivers twice as much as 150W. Those. the reference Gainward GeForce GTX 660 has only 150W (the PCIe slot delivers 75W), while the Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD already has this value of 300W, i.e. exactly twice as much.

    Well, some information about the length of the Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD video card regarding the reference PCB on which the Gainward GeForce GTX 660 2048MB GDDR5 is built: 295mm versus 180mm. Photo clickable:

    Installing the current drivers ForceWare 320.49

    with chipset support: GeForce GTX 760. Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD specifications for the GPU-Z utility:

    So, we’ve finished the theory, let’s get down to practice. The first subject is Adobe After Effects CC and two tests: CUDA (Ray-traced 3D Renderer) and OpenGL (Cartoon effect). Engine: Ray-traced 3D Renderer, to generate one preview frame, all processor resources are taken and several threads are generated, and it takes a decent amount of time. At the same time, the GPU engine makes it an order of magnitude faster …

    GPU Information Adobe After Effects:

    All CUDA calculations include the Boost frequency and the fact that it does not jump to the base and back is the merit of the drivers. GPU load on final Ray-traced 3D Renderer composition:

    Total time: 7 minutes and 44 seconds

    , vs
    10 minutes and 16 seconds
    for GeForce GTX 660 fps:
    14.735
    (GeForce GTX 660 fps:
    14.054
    ).

    Run the command: Edit > Purge > All Memory and make the final render of the composition. GPU load for GeForce GTX 760 chipset:

    CPU and RAM load: Total time: 37 seconds

    for Gigabyte GV-N760OC-2GD and
    39 seconds
    for Gainward GeForce GTX 660 GDMB5 20024

    Testing video cards in Adobe Premiere Pro CC with Adobe Premiere Pro CC July 2013 Update (v. 7.0.1) installed. Final timeline render with CUDA effects and enabled engine: Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (CUDA). GPU utilization: 71% vs 99% for the GeForce GTX 660.

    CPU utilization: like the GPU, also around 70%. Total time: 13 seconds

    , and the video card based on the nVidia GeForce GTX 660 chipset managed
    14 seconds
    . Read on.

    Compare NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

    Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
    Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — T -Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.

    NVIDIA Quadro K620

    versus

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

    Benefits

    Reasons to choose NVIDIA Quadro K620

    • Newer graphics card, 2 year(s) 2 month(s) release date difference: approximately % more

      • 8 cores MHz vs 980 MHz

    • 15% more core clock in Boost mode: 1124 MHz vs 980 MHz
    • 4.1 times less power consumption: 41 Watt vs 170 Watt
    • 300x more memory frequency: 1800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
    • About 15% more performance in CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 vs 86.208

    Issue date 22 July 2014 vs 10 May 2012 Core clock 1058 MHz vs 980 MHz Core clock in Boost mode 1124 MHz vs 980 MHz Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt vs 170 Watt Memory frequency 1800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 99.125 vs 86.208

    Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

    • 5.7 times more texture speed: 102.5 billion / sec vs 17. 98 GTexel / s
    • 3.5 times more shader processors 90 90 vs 302 90 2.8 times greater floating point performance: 2,459.5 gflops vs 863.2 gflops
    • 2.4 times greater performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 5293 vs 2245
    • About 11% faster performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 521 vs 469
    • About 77% more performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 12174 vs 6869
    • Performance in CompuBench 1.5 DesktopDetect mPixels/s) about 89% more: 41.613 vs 22.026
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 3.3x more: 971.208 vs 297.631
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 3 times bigger: 4.281 vs 1.427
    • 2.6 times greater performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark: 40.404 vs 15.363
    • 2.4 times greater performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark: 7038 vs 2970
    • About 48% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames): 3686 vs 2490
    • About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames): 3361 vs 3329

      • 2.4x more in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7038 vs 2970

    • About 48% more GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) performance: 3686 vs 2490
    • About 1% more GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) performance: 3361 vs 3329
    • Benchmark performance 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 2.6 times greater: 1841 vs 702
    Texturing Speed ​​ 102.5 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s
    Number of shaders 1344 vs 384
    Floating point performance 2,459.5 gflops vs 863.2 gflops
    PassMark — G3D Mark 5293 vs 2245
    PassMark — G2D Mark 521 vs 469
    Geekbench — OpenCL 12174 vs 6869
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 41.613 vs 22.026
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 971.208 vs 297.631
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 4.281 vs 1.427
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 40.404 vs 15.363
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 7038 vs 2970
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3686 vs 2490
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3361 vs 3329
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 7038 vs 2970
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3686 vs 2490
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3361 vs 3329
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 1841 vs 702

    Benchmark comparison

    GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620
    GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

    PassMark — G3D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    PassMark — G2D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    Geekbench — OpenCL
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    22.026
    41.613
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    297.631
    971.208
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    15.363
    40.404
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    99.125
    86.208
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    Name NVIDIA Quadro K620 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
    PassMark — G3D Mark 2245 5293
    PassMark — G2D Mark 469 521
    Geekbench — OpenCL 6869 12174
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 22.026 41.613
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 297.631 971.208
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 1.427 4.281
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 15.363 40.404
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 99.125 86.208
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 2970 7038
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) 2490 3686
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3329 3361
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 2970 7038
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 2490 3686
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3329 3361
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 702 1841

    Performance comparison

    NVIDIA Quadro K620 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
    Architecture Maxwell Kepler
    Codename GM107 GK104
    Production date 22 July 2014 10 May 2012
    Price at first issue date $189. 89 $399
    Place in the rating 858 461
    Price now $189.93 $474.99
    Type Workstation Desktop
    Price/performance ratio (0-100) 15.23 13.20
    Boost core clock 1124MHz 980 MHz
    Core clock 1058MHz 980 MHz
    Floating point performance 863. 2 gflops 2,459.5 gflops
    Process 28nm 28nm
    Number of shaders 384 1344
    Texturing speed 17.98 GTexel/s 102.5 billion / sec
    Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 170 Watt
    Number of transistors 1,870 million 3,540 million
    Number of CUDA conveyors 1344
    Maximum temperature 97 °C
    Video connectors 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, DVI-I DP One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI. .., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
    Number of simultaneous monitors 4
    Audio input for HDMI Internal
    G-SYNC support
    HDCP
    HDMI
    Maximum resolution VGA 2048×1536
    Multi-monitor support
    Interface PCIe 2. 0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
    Length 160mm 9.5″ (24.1 cm)
    Additional power connectors None Two 6-pin
    Width 1″ (2.5cm)
    Tire PCI Express 3.0
    Height 4.376″ (11.1 cm)
    SLI support 3-way
    DirectX 12 12. 0 (11_0)
    OpenGL 4.5 4.2
    Shader Model 5
    Vulcan
    Maximum memory size 2GB 2GB
    Memory bus width 128 Bit 256-bit GDDR5
    Memory frequency 1800 MHz 6.0 GB/s
    Memory type 128 Bit GDDR5
    Memory bandwidth 192. 2 GB/s
    3D Vision Pro
    Mosaic
    nView Desktop Management
    3D Blu-Ray
    3D Gaming
    3D Vision
    Adaptive VSync
    CUDA
    FXAA
    GPU Boost
    SLI
    TXAA

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX SLI vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM comparison which is better?

    Home / Graphics card / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX SLI vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM

    1920

    576 (42. 9%) better than

    vs

    1344

    Power Demand (TDP)

    150 W

    -20 W (-11.8%) better than

    vs

    170 W

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM Benefits

    Comparison winner

    Core frequency

    915 MHz

    At 315 MHz (52.5%) better than

    vs

    600 MHz

    Memory bus width

    256 bit

    254 bits (12700%) better than

    vs

    2 bit

    Memory frequency

    6008 MHz

    At 3208 MHz (114.6%) better than

    vs

    2800 MHz

    Kepler

    Architecture

    		 Kepler

    Code name

    N13E-GR GK104

    Type

    Notebook Desktop

    Number of shaders

    1920

    576 (42. 9%) better than

    		1344

    Core clock

    600 MHz 915 MHz

    At 315 MHz (52.5%) better than

    Boost frequency

    n/a 980 MHz

    Number of transistors

    5080 million 3.540 million

    Process

    28 nm 28 nm

    Interface

    n/a PCIe 3.0 x16

    Power Demand (TDP)

    Calculated thermal power indicates the average heat dissipation in load operation,
    the larger the value, the more the requirements for cooling and power consumption increase.

    150W

    -20 W (-11.8%) better than

    		170 W

    Length

    n/a 241 mm

    Additional power connectors

    n/a 2x 6-pin

    SLI 9 support0003

    + no data

    3D Vision

    + no data

    CUDA

    The CUDA architecture enables applications that are optimized for
    parallel computing. For example, for the development and design of neural networks.

    Verde Drivers

    + no data

    Video connectors

    n/a 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort

    DirectX

    DirectX 11, Shader 5.1 12 (11_0)

    Floating point performance

    n/a 2.634 gflops

    Optimus

    + no data
    Benchmark
    memory
    gDDR50469

    		 GDDR5

    Maximum memory

    Large video memory allows you to run demanding games with lots of textures,
    use high resolution monitors, provide more opportunities for cryptocurrency mining.

    n/a 2 GB

    Memory bus width

    The wider the video memory bus, the more data is transferred to the GPU per unit of time and the better performance in demanding games.

    2 bit 256 bit

    254 bit (12700%) better than

    Shared memory

    — no data

    Memory frequency

    A high memory frequency has a positive effect on the speed of a video card with a large amount of data.

    2800 MHz 6008 MHz

    At 3208 MHz (114.6%) better than

    Memory bandwidth

    The greater the data transfer bandwidth, the more effective RAM the PC can use.

    n/a 192.3

    specifications, overview, reviews and comparison with competitors

    NVIDIA is one of the leaders in the global video card market. This brand delivers high-performance, technological solutions that can satisfy the needs of both ordinary users and those who are fond of computer games and graphics applications that require particularly high performance from the corresponding hardware component. Among the graphics cards that are characterized by optimal performance at an affordable price is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670. What is its specificity? How productive is it and how is it ahead of its competitors?

    Graphics Card Overview

    The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 graphics card is part of the 6XX line, which also includes the GTX 680 and GTX 690. The other two cards are in the higher price range. The GTX 680 has one processor installed, while the GTX 690 has two. The cards belonging to the considered line from NVIDIA are characterized by IT-specialists as combining optimal performance and an acceptable level of power consumption.

    The GTX 670, in turn, belongs to the middle price range. It is considered the successor of the GTX 570 device. In the structure of the GTS 670 video card, there is a high-performance processor, however, a number of functions in it are deactivated. The device in question lends itself well to overclocking, during which the performance of the device can be brought to a level comparable to that of the top models of the line. This can be traced both in the aspect of checking the capabilities of a video card in synthetic tests, and in the practice of using the device in computer games.

    Specifications

    Let’s move on to a more detailed study of the capabilities of the GTX 670. The characteristics of the device in terms of individual components will be especially useful to us. The most remarkable facts about them can be presented in the following list.

    The video card is made according to the 28 nm process technology.

    The structure of the main graphics chip has 1344 processors responsible for processing streams. The number of texture units is 112. The number of pipelines responsible for raster operations is 32. The video card’s RAM bus is 256 bits wide. GPU frequency — 915 MHz stock, 980 — during overclocking.

    Video card RAM frequency — 1502 MHz (effective — 6 GHz).

    DirectX support — in version 11.1.

    The GPU power system is powered by an RT8867A controller manufactured by Richtek. The corresponding hardware component supports four-phase process control, as well as active switching between them, in order to reduce the power consumption of the video card in its minimum load mode.

    In order to stabilize the power supply of the main microcircuit, lines are used, which are characterized by a double base of structural elements.

    Device versions

    The NVIDIA GTX 670 graphics card is available in several hardware versions. So, there is a standard model, and there is one that is adapted for small PC cases — Direct CU Mini OC. What are the key differences between them? The standard version of the device has, in particular, two additional power connectors, each with 6 pins. The Direct CU Mini OC has one connector equipped with 8 pins. There is a difference in the power requirements of a computer power supply. In the standard version, the corresponding parameter must be at least 500 watts in the «reduced» version — 450 watts. But in terms of the main set of components, the noted technological implementations of the video card are identical. So, for example, with regard to support for NVIDIA’s SLI technology, all devices have connectors for the subsequent combination of the powers of several video cards.

    All device versions have an efficient cooling system. Let’s consider its features in more detail.

    Power Consumption and Cooling System

    The GTX 670 consumes approximately 141 watts of power during active gaming and 172 watts when overclocked. The device is equipped with a modern cooling system. So, a radiator made of aluminum is complemented by a heat-removing structure. The cooling system on NVIDIA GTX 670 cards is also characterized by experts as one of the most compact. At the heart of the corresponding hardware component is a mounting plate that acts as a cooling component for both chips and batteries that interact with it through thermal pads.

    Speaking about the practical efficiency of the cooling system of the video card in question, it can be noted that when the graphics core is heated to about 71 degrees, the cooler rotation speed will be about 43% of the maximum. However, if the device works at that, the processor temperature will drop to 57 degrees. Thus, the corresponding hardware component of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 can be described as one of the most efficient on the market.

    You can also note that the video card cooling system is designed so that the heated air is removed outside the device. One of the possible disadvantages of the corresponding hardware component is in the quiet mechanical noise effects that are observed, as some experts note, even in normal operation mode. By the way, if the graphics core is in the minimum load mode, then their frequencies are automatically reduced (we will look at this feature in more detail later), as a result of which the power consumption of the core decreases, as well as heat dissipation. In this mode, the processor heats up to a temperature within 27 degrees, and the cooling system is very quiet.

    Processor and memory

    Let’s study the features of other hardware components of the GTX 670 video card. The characteristics of the graphics processor, in particular, installed in it, as well as the RAM, will be very useful for us.

    The first component is type GK104. Operates at a frequency of 915 MHz. It is equipped with 1344 thread processing processors. It can be noted that both marked indicators of the GeForce GTX 670 video card are more modest than those of the GTX 680 device. So, the «premium» model has 192 processors, designed for processing threads, more. The clock frequency of the chip is 91 MHz higher.

    Regarding RAM, the video card in question has 8 modules installed with a total capacity of 2 GB. There are 4 corresponding components on each side of the device. The characteristics of the RAM modules correspond to those installed on the older model of the line, noted above. The RAM bus on the video card operates at 256 bits, the frequency of the modules is 6 GHz.

    Competitive comparison

    The main competitor of the video card in question is the Radeon HD 7950 device. They are comparable in terms of their main characteristics. Some experts also classify the Radeon HD 7970 device as a competing solution. There is also reason to talk about the “unofficial” competition of the device in question with other models of the brand , first of all, the GTX 680, which belongs to the same line of devices, as well as the GTX 760, a newer graphics adapter.

    According to IT experts, the GTX 670 card should be compared with the three noted devices — a direct competitor and two «unofficial» in two modes — nominal and overclocked. According to experts, in the first scheme of operation, the video card in question is ahead of the Radeon HD 7950, in some cases — even HD 7970 (we will study such modes later in the article), and a little GTX 760. As we know, the GTX 680 device belongs to the premium segment of the line, so when comparing the nominal characteristics and performance in normal mode, this device ahead of the GTX 670. However, in overclocking mode, the efficiency of the two devices becomes comparable. Let’s study this feature in more detail.

    Overclocking

    We noted above that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 video card is adapted for overclocking. It can be noted that the manufacturer of the device has developed its own system for controlling the power parameters and frequencies of the device. It fixes the upper limit for the first indicator, as well as the base frequency of the video card. A special software block monitors the dynamics of using processor resources, its power consumption, temperature, and sets the optimal supply voltage and frequency (in this case, the corresponding parameter may be significantly higher than the base values).

    Among the most user-friendly overclocking solutions is eVGA PrecisionX. Experts note its optimal compatibility with the video card in question. So, with the help of this software, you can effectively monitor the frequency of the processor. Note that power management is not available to the owner of the GTX 670 video card. In principle, this is logical — an inexperienced user can set parameters that will lead to the failure of the video card.

    Temperature and power consumption during overclocking

    It will also be useful to study one significant aspect of such a procedure as overclocking the GTX 670 — the temperature level of the device and the actual power consumption. According to experts, the first parameter of the device in question in both modes — regular operation and overclocking, is practically no different from that which characterizes the flagship model — GTX 680. The cooling system of the video card at the same time operates at a speed of about 2160 during overclocking and 2130 — in normal mode . This allows us to talk about a high level of optimization of temperature indicators by the manufacturer of the device.

    As for power consumption, the GeForce GTX 670 is close to the flagship model in overclocking mode, and at the same time is inferior to it when operating at standard frequencies. At the same time, one of the competitors of the device — the HD 7970 video card — is characterized by a higher level of power consumption.

    Practical results of overclocking

    According to experts who tested the device in question during overclocking in modern computer games, it is quite possible to achieve a noticeable increase in the real performance of the device. In the process of launching games, as well as using synthetic tests, it was revealed that the device could well compete with video cards such as the Radeon HD 7970. In some modes, experts have recorded that the device in question outperforms the GTX 680, a device related to premium in the line. Of course, if it operates at standard frequencies.

    Let’s study in more detail what results the GTX 670 shows in specific applications. In this case, it is advisable to make a comparison with solutions that are positioned as corresponding to a higher price segment, in particular, these include the unofficial competitor of the video card in the branded line — GTX 680.

    Among the most popular programs for testing video cards is 3D Mark 11. This test showed that the device in question is ahead of the marked device from Radeon, and when overclocked it becomes even more efficient than the «premium» model of the line — the GTX 680 video card. as we noted above, the parameters of the GTX 680 are not artificially inflated during overclocking. Regarding the operation of devices at standard frequencies, the difference is about 11% in favor of the premium model.

    Another popular benchmark is the Heaven Benchmark. Through it, you can determine the level of tessellation of devices. As tests show, in the nominal mode of operation of the GeForce GTX 670 video card, results are achieved similar to those shown by the Radeon HD 79 device. 70, and when overclocked, they are identical to those that reflect the performance of the flagship model.

    Let’s study the efficiency of devices in computer games. Among the most popular is Batman: Arkham City. The performance of NVIDIA cards in it is higher than when using a competitive Radeon solution. The gap between the GTX 670 and the older model of the line in this game is very small. If the device is overclocked, then it is significantly ahead of the flagship.

    Battlefield 3 shows similar patterns. Moreover, the gap between the premium model and the GTX 670, according to IT specialists, becomes more noticeable as the screen resolution increases. It should be noted that in some games solutions from NVIDIA are inferior to the Radeon video card. Among them is Aliens VS Predator. Even the overclocked GTX 670 lags behind the performance of a competing device, while overtaking the flagship model of the line. It is noteworthy that when comparing the effectiveness of video cards of this series with the younger line, in particular, with the GTX 580 device, the lag behind the second in Aliens VS Predator is not so obvious. Experts explain this by the fact that in the GTX 580 and Radeon HD 79 video cards70 uses a 384-bit RAM bus, while the GTX 670, as we noted at the beginning of the article, has a corresponding figure of 256 bits. Perhaps this is the reason behind the backlog of solutions released by NVIDIA, from competing ones.

    In the game Dirt 3, NVIDIA devices are far ahead of the Radeon video card in terms of performance. So, the GTX 670 works in this game 45% more efficiently than the competitor. True, at the same time, it is significantly inferior to the flagship — by about 16%. When overclocked, the device in question is ahead of the premium model in only one resolution — 2560 by 1440 pixels.

    In Crysis 2, the GTX 670 is more efficient than the GTX 680 only when overclocked, and at a resolution of 1680 by 1050 pixels, it shows slightly less efficiency even at nominal frequencies. However, in the corresponding mode, the device in question is inferior to the Radeon. In the game Lost Planet 2, the flagship device is more efficient than the GTX 670, which in turn is ahead of the Radeon graphics card. When overclocked, the device in question works a little more productively than the GTX 680. The video card of the previous line — the GTX 580 — is noticeably inferior to the new models.

    In the game H.A.W.X. 2, the device in question works almost twice as fast as the leader of the previous line and is slightly inferior to the flagship. The Radeon graphics card also works less efficiently in this game. In overclocked mode, the GTX 670 is the best.

    Another popular game is Metro 2033. Many IT professionals consider it to be one of the most demanding video card performance. The GTX 670 device in overclocking mode, as the resolution increases during tests, shows more and more efficiency. In particular, its performance becomes almost identical to that of the flagship, at a resolution of 2560 by 1440 pixels.

    So, in specialized applications and computer games, the video card looks more than worthy — both against the background of competitors and when comparing its performance with other solutions from NVIDIA.

    User and expert reviews

    What do users and experts say about the GTX 670? A review of this device is often found on thematic online portals and is often accompanied by the opinions of computer gamers and IT solution enthusiasts. Relevant assessments can be classified into the following main categories:

    — reflecting an opinion about the level of energy consumption and the cooling system of the device;

    — concerning the characteristics of the device, technologies supported by it;

    — evaluating the efficiency of overclocking;

    — reflecting an opinion about the performance of the device.

    Regarding the reviews of the first type, reflecting the position of the owner of the device, an enthusiast of IT solutions or an expert regarding the power consumption of the device, we can note the positive attitude of users. We noted above that the GTS 670 video card in all its versions has a balanced and efficient cooling system. Thus, even with a high load on the device, the appropriate hardware component will protect the device from overheating and malfunctions.

    The next category of reviews is the characteristics of the device, as well as the technologies it supports. If we consider the first aspect of opinions about the GeForce GTX 670 — characteristics, then the ratings of users and specialists here reflect their high assessment of the relevant parameters. At the same time, the fact that the video card can be overclocked is especially noted, and therefore the nominal characteristics should be considered in correlation with their potential increase. How effective this can be, we have seen above, considering the effectiveness of overclocking in various applications and games.

    Regarding technology support, users and experts agree that the device fully meets the current market demands in terms of compatibility with advanced standards. Such as, for example, DirectX 11.

    The next aspect of the reviews, in fact, concerns the overclocking efficiency. And here, users and experts are in solidarity in assessing the relevant capabilities of the device. Overclocking the GTX 670 is said to be easy and incredibly efficient.

    Opinions regarding device performance are also generally positive. Many users note that the difference in the test results of the video card in question and competing solutions in practice may not be noticed at all, in particular, during the game. Not every person, therefore, will be able to distinguish between the frame rate of 135 frames per second and 137, which is fixed in tests when comparing the GTX 670 and competing models.

    Users note the excellent ratio of quality and price of the device, which is formed, again, largely due to the overclocking capabilities of the device. But even when using the video card at nominal frequencies, the efficiency of its work is estimated by users and experts as very impressive.

    Summary

    The GTX 670 belongs, as we noted at the beginning of the article, to the middle price segment. However, the actual performance of the device is comparable to that of flagship models. If you correctly overclock the device, then its efficiency will not be inferior to premium video cards of the corresponding line, and in a number of tests it will be characterized by higher performance. The same can be said about comparing the device with competing solutions, in particular, the Radeon line. Thus, the described video card is among the most competitive on the market, if we talk about the ratio of quality and price.

    GTX 670 — GTX 760 | Festima.Ru

    Electronics

    Table

    List

    Tape

    Gaming video cards PALIT GTX 670 — 2 Gb and GIGABYTE GTX 760 — 2 Gb

    We found this ad 3 years ago

    Click Follow and the system will automatically notify you of new offers from all bulletin boards

    Go to announcement

    Complaint type
    OtherCopyright infringementProhibited informationAd out of datePornographySpam

    Comment

    Show original

    Address (Click on the address to view the map)

    Moscow, Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya line, Altufyevo metro station
    More ads

    Video card in working condition

    Computer accessories and components

    22 days ago

    Source

    I will sell the video card it works fine it doesn’t heat anything in excellent technical condition one of the rare video cards

    Computer accessories and components

    22 days ago

    Source

    I’ll give it to the smartest one. You can check on my computer, any tests. Video card ASUS GTX670-DC2-2GD5 / NVIDIA GK104 (Kepler) Cuda cores — 1344 Core frequency, MHz — 915 (980 with GPU Boost technology included) Memory frequency, MHz — 1502 (6008) Memory size, MB — 2048 Memory bus, bit — 256 Memory type — GDDR5 Bus type — PCI-E 3.0 x16 Second owner. Inherited from parents. There is no box, documents and receipts, after all, 2012. About 6 months ago, the coolant was removed to replace the thermal paste and lubrication of the coolers. Pick up in Reutov or Novogireevo, Perovo.

    Computer accessories and components

    23 days ago

    Source

    Video card in good condition. Used every day. Fully serviced: replaced thermal paste and thermal pads. More powerful than gtx 760. Performance at the level of gtx 960 and gtx 1050. It is possible to check. Bargaining

    Computer accessories and components

    23 days ago

    Source

    I took it in March on Avito works in games of norms, I play tanks and in GTA I sell all the norms that I will take rx 570 more powerful. No bargaining No bargaining.

    Computer accessories and components

    24 days ago

    Source

    Selling a computer. Perfect for work and will pull a lot of good games. I went through The Witcher 3 on it, Valorant played, Tanks, Dota, GTA 5, everything pulls perfectly on medium-high. Sold with all the necessary wires, keyboard and mouse. I WILL GIVE A TERABYTE HARD DISK AS A GIFT. Everything works as it should. Characteristics: Processor: Intel 4 cores Core2Quad Q9400. Motherboard GIGABYTE lga 775. RAM: 4GB. Video card: GeForce GTX 670 2GB ASUS. (For a fee +3700) Power supply: 600W with backlight. Hard drive: 500Gb. Installed a fresh Windows 10 license with all the necessary drivers and software. Reason for sale — played enough) Pickup

    Desktop computers

    25 days ago

    Source

    Video card Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 2GB (GV-N670WF2-2GD) =================================== ============= Did not participate in mining, was used for games and office tasks. Not disassembled, not repaired The video card is in good condition, if desired, a real buyer can replace the thermal paste. =============================================== questions, please contact in private messages. Calls on weekdays from 11:00 to 20:00

    Computer accessories and components

    25 days ago

    Source

    GTX670 video card from Gigabayte in excellent condition, did not overheat, thermal paste was changed on time, did not participate in mining, only surfing and occasionally playing games. More details on the last photo.

    Computer accessories and components

    25 days ago

    Source

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670, VRAM: 4 GB, Video Card Developer: NVIDIA, Product Line: GeForce, Memory Type: GDDR5, Memory Bus Bit: 256-bit, PCI Express Version: 3.0, Number of HDMI Outputs: 1, DisplayPort Out Power 2x 6 Pin Didn’t mine. Most games run just fine! Selling because bought a new one.

    Computer accessories and components

    26 days ago

    Source

    My personal card, on which I spent the whole mining boom. That is, inserted, installed the latest drivers and play. Of the jambs, the DisplayPort port does not work, it did not work before me with the previous owner, I am the second owner. All other ports are fully operational. Without repairs and other things, fully serviced, that is — cleaned the textolite with a solvent from dust and other things during its life, complete replacement of thermal pads with Arctic Cooling, Diamond Nano TC-H03 thermal paste, according to the stress test it heats up to 73 degrees in the heat, with the departure of the heat, the temperatures will become lower, in games it holds 68-70 degrees, including heavy ones. Warface pulls in 150+ fps, played quite cheerfully on a 144 Hz monitor, passed the Dead Air mod on average in Full HD 70-80 fps. for the rest of the toys, the card +- butts with the GTX 1050, tanks pull on ultras at 60-70 fps easily, Dota2 or CS:GO also on high-ultra with excellent fps without problems, Metro Exodus on medium can also be passed at 40-50 fps and sometimes even higher, I played a long time ago and I don’t remember the exact numbers. on consumption in games eats 130-150 watts, additional power 2×6. Seems to have given you all the information you need! General specs Model GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 670 [GV-N670WF2-2GD] Color blue Video card backlight n/a Key specs GeForce GPU lineup GeForce GTX 670 GPU Support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6 standards Video processor specifications Number of video chips 1 Process technology 28 nm Minimum operating frequency videochip 941 MHz Turbo frequency 1020 MHz Number of universal processors 1344 Number of texture units 112 Number of ROPs 32 Shader version 5.0 Video memory specifications Video memory size 2 GB Memory type GDDR5 Effective memory frequency (MHz) 6008 MHz Memory bus width 256 bits Maximum memory bandwidth 192.2 GB/s Connectivity PCI-E connection interface PCI Express 3.0 version Support for multiprocessor SLI configuration Image output Number of simultaneously connected monitors 4 Video connectors DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI Maximum resolution 2560×1600 Power Additional power required Yes Additional power connectors 6-pin x2 Maximum power consumption 170 W Recommended power supply unit 550 W Dimensions Low Profile Card (Low Profile) no Number of Expansion Slots Occupied 2 Graphics Card Length 265 mm Graphics Card Thickness 136. 5 mm

    Computer accessories and components

    27 days ago

    Source

    Video card suitable for many modern games. Despite its age, it is slightly faster than the Gtx 1050. Rdr 2 runs at 30-40 fps on standard graphics settings. In Gta 5 at standard fps in full HD somewhere around 150. I also visited Metro Exodus — quite playable. It also supports 4k resolution. Four connectors: DVI (analog and digital), HDMI, Displayport. Temperature under heavy load 72°. Fully serviced, thermal paste changed. I will give you a ride to any district of St. Petersburg for free. Trade is appropriate.

    Computer accessories and components

    29 days ago

    Source

    Fully serviceable, excellent condition, ideal coolers. More powerful than GTX 760 and GTX 1050.

    Computer accessories and components

    a month ago

    Source

    Attention! Festima.Ru is a search engine for ads from popular sites.
    We do not sell goods, do not store images and personal data.
    All images belong to their respective authors
    Denial of responsibility

    I sell 2 video cards gtx 670. Gigabyte gtx 670 2 gb: repaired, as they said in the service center, the fuse was replaced. for 3500 Asus gtx 670 2 gb: Not repaired, shabby and has scratches. for 4500 Reasonable Bargaining. It is advisable to call (I may not answer for a long time)

    Computer accessories and components

    Voronezh region, Voronezh, st. Revolutions of 1905

    2 years ago

    Source

    I sell 2 video cards gtx 670. Gigabyte gtx 670 2 gb: repaired, as they said in the service center, the fuse was replaced. for 3500 Asus gtx 670 2 gb: Not repaired, shabby and has scratches. for 4500 Reasonable Bargaining. It is advisable to call (I may not answer for a long time)

    Computer accessories and components

    2 years ago

    Source

    I sell 2 video cards gtx 670.

    2023 © All rights reserved