That one needs at least one 8-pin as well
You can again see it on the product picture.IMO, the best 4 GB 680 out there, is the MSI 680 GTX Twin Frozr 4 GB - it only needs 2 x 6 pin and is factory over clocked - and a good cooler.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Break through the gloom! Kepler comes to Mac Pro...GTX680!
- Thread starter MacVidCards
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That one needs at least one 8-pin as well
You can again see it on the product picture.IMO, the best 4 GB 680 out there, is the MSI 680 GTX Twin Frozr 4 GB - it only needs 2 x 6 pin and is factory over clocked - and a good cooler.
That one needs at least one 8-pin as well
spec sheet says "(...) or two available 6-pin PCI Express power connectors." Dam, I was so sure I found sth... ...but anyway, so there actually exists a 2x6-pin 680 4GB card?! That's all I needed to know.
...but anyway, so there actually exists a 680 4GB card?! That's all I needed to know.
Specsheet says this
"Requirements:
Minimum of a 550 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 38 Amps.)
An available 6-pin PCI-E power connector and an available 8 pin PCI-E power connector."
But yeah, the MSI one is the one I'm going for, as soon as it's stocked in my country.
Specsheet says this
"Requirements:
Minimum of a 550 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 38 Amps.)
An available 6-pin PCI-E power connector and an available 8 pin PCI-E power connector."
But yeah, the MSI one is the one I'm going for, as soon as it's stocked in my country.
True. Very strange that, haven't read that one but the Pdf on top of the page...
...btw there is even a MR sponsorship mentioned for every 200 posts.
The following EVGA GTX 680 cards have two 6 pin connectors:
EVGA 02G-P4-2680-KR GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2682-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2684-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card with Backplate
I noticed in “Cuuby’s Corner” that some guy had the vram of his GTX 680 2GB card maxed out. But it looks like the guy doesn’t know how to use X-Plane 10’s rendering settings.
How's your 4GB GTX 670 working out on X-Plane?
What do you think about pkshdk's MSI N680GTX Twin Frozr 4GD5/OC video card?
Or the only 2 x 6 pin 4GB GTX 680 card out there.
If it gets good reviews, I'll get one also.
One skeptic thinks it will be noisy because the fans are too small.
So far I've only found one customer review:
Pros:
Easy to install
Very quiet
Run super cool
Max out all games no problem
Cons:
One small issue but not that big of deal since I can live with it.
When I plug in the HDMI port from the GTX680 to my LG IPS236 monitor, the color is somewhat not as rich as it is comparing to DVI cable (white as though it's foggy). I used this same monitor on my old graphics cards HD5830 and HD6870 and the color was exactly similar from HDMI to DVI. So I'm not sure what's going on here with the HDMI port on this GTX680. Maybe a newer driver in the nearly future would fix this? Maybe time would tell.
It's expensive.
Last edited:
I'm liking the 4GB 670. I didn't see an FPS increase (explained elsewhere as either CPU bound due to XP's single thread feed of OpenGL calls and/or driver optimization) so much as the ability to crank up detail, AA, textures, etc. all to the max., even HDR without too much of a hit, but I don't really see a benefit to HDR if it costs a single frame...and it causes some weird edge "sparkles" for me. I haven't come close to hitting 4 GB, nowhere near it, yet. I can see it happening down the road with certain complex planes and photoscenery combos though.
Ref that review on HDMI issues, I've never gotten what I would call great color or text using HDMI output from a desktop graphics card, except for maybe video (animations/movies). Even then, some calibration was necessary.
I don't know anything about MSI's new card, other than it appears to have specs that will work. I went with EVGA because of their reputation and service. Also, I'm not sure you'll see a big difference between the 670 and 680 in XP, or even the 570 for that matter.
Performance and which card to choose?
I have an early '08 Mac Pro with the Apple ATI Radeon HD 5870 and Mountain Lion now.
Am I correct in assuming that there is no EFI boot screen, and only PCI Express 1.0 support in OS X and Windows (Bootcamp)? Is the performance difference for ~ $500 US worth it for only PCI express 1.0 and not at least 2.0?
Does the mini display port adapter work well in both windows and OS X?
I was thinking of getting this one from amazon:
StarTech.com DP2MDPMF6IN 6in DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort Video Cable Adapter - M/F
All of these have two 6-pin power plugs, I have the plugs from the ATI now,
which of these cards would you go with for the early '08?
EVGA 02G-P4-2680-KR GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2682-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2684-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card with Backplate
I have an early '08 Mac Pro with the Apple ATI Radeon HD 5870 and Mountain Lion now.
Am I correct in assuming that there is no EFI boot screen, and only PCI Express 1.0 support in OS X and Windows (Bootcamp)? Is the performance difference for ~ $500 US worth it for only PCI express 1.0 and not at least 2.0?
Does the mini display port adapter work well in both windows and OS X?
I was thinking of getting this one from amazon:
StarTech.com DP2MDPMF6IN 6in DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort Video Cable Adapter - M/F
All of these have two 6-pin power plugs, I have the plugs from the ATI now,
which of these cards would you go with for the early '08?
EVGA 02G-P4-2680-KR GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2682-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card
EVGA 02G-P4-2684-KR SuperClocked GTX 680 2GB Video Card with Backplate
I believe this 4GB 680 has just two 6-pins;
http://www.zotacusa.com/geforce-gtx-680-zt-60103-10p.html
I think some others were using this one earlier in the thread.
http://www.zotacusa.com/geforce-gtx-680-zt-60103-10p.html
I think some others were using this one earlier in the thread.
Okay, since noone else has answered, I will.
I'd go with the middle one, the superclocked 680.
I don't think you need the backplate.
Xav8tor's GTX 670 has a backplate. I'd be curious to know his opinion.
It doesn't have a boot screen. Why do you need it?
Somebody can override me, but I am guessing it only has PCIe 1 speed with OS X because the link speed is only 2.5 GT/s.
I should think it would have PCIe 2 speed under Bootcamp with Windows.
I probably should not be throwing in my two cents worth as I don't know what I am talking about.
But maybe this will get somebody to answer your question who does know what they are talking about.
Zotac and MSI 4GB GTX 680s. I can't wait to see some reviews on those puppies.
I have a EVGA GTX 680 SC without a backplate, I don't know why you would need it.
Is this report of any use? If you want me to run a program to test or give more info, let me know.
CUDA-Z Report
=============
Version: 0.6.133 SVN Built Jun 25 2010 23:28:46
http://cuda-z.sourceforge.net/
OS Version: Mac OS X 10.8 12A269
Driver Version: 8.0.51 295.30.00f01
Driver Dll Version: 5.0
Runtime Dll Version: 3.0
Core Information
----------------
Name: GeForce GTX 680
Compute Capability: 3.0
Clock Rate: 1124 MHz
Multiprocessors: 8
Warp Size: 32
Regs Per Block: 65536
Threads Per Block: 1024
Threads Dimensions: 1024 x 1024 x 64
Grid Dimensions: 2147483647 x 65535 x 65535
Watchdog Enabled: Yes
Integrated GPU: No
Concurrent Kernels: Yes
Compute Mode: Default
Memory Information
------------------
Total Global: 2047.81 MiB
Shared Per Block: 48 KiB
Pitch: 2048 MiB
Total Constant: 64 KiB
Texture Alignment: 512 B
Texture 1D Size: 65536
Texture 2D Size: 65536 x 65536
Texture 3D Size: 4096 x 4096 x 4096
GPU Overlap: Yes
Map Host Memory: Yes
Error Correction: No
Performance Information
-----------------------
Memory Copy
Host Pinned to Device: 2877.33 MiB/s
Host Pageable to Device: 2595.64 MiB/s
Device to Host Pinned: 2864.73 MiB/s
Device to Host Pageable: 2539.88 MiB/s
Device to Device: 67.831 GiB/s
GPU Core Performance
Single-precision Float: 2119.12 Gflop/s
Double-precision Float: 153.662 Gflop/s
32-bit Integer: 611.994 Giop/s
24-bit Integer: 610.082 Giop/s
Generated: Sat Aug 18 18:56:26 2012
BTW: this card flies X-Plane in BootCamp, sceneries where I get 12 fps in OSx are in BootCamp around 30 and more. So, it is clearly a driver issue in OSX. We can only hope for improved drivers but it may also never happen.
Thank you.
I run XP10 in BootCamp anyway so that's fine. My XP plug-ins are all Windows.
Originally Posted by Topper
Xav8tor's GTX 670 has a backplate. I'd be curious to know his opinion.
The backplate lowers the temps (slightly...1 to 3 deg. C), and adds sturdiness and protection to the card.
True enough that the driver in OS X is not as good as in Windows. I've seen about a 50% increase on occasion, but there are other scenarios where the difference is negligible. Like everything else XP related, it depends on the plane, location, and your settings. If you are only getting 12 FPS in OS X with a 680, your settings are either completely crazy off the charts unreasonable (i.e., everything at max, every box checked, etc.), you are CPU bound, you have a software driver or XP install (prefs?) issue, or you have a hardware issue...or a combo thereof. I can get 70ish with 10.5rc1 with the Baron at KSEA at default settings (except no ATC or other a/c) letting AI fly my plane using the demo (so others can compare results).
Xav8tor's GTX 670 has a backplate. I'd be curious to know his opinion.
The backplate lowers the temps (slightly...1 to 3 deg. C), and adds sturdiness and protection to the card.
True enough that the driver in OS X is not as good as in Windows. I've seen about a 50% increase on occasion, but there are other scenarios where the difference is negligible. Like everything else XP related, it depends on the plane, location, and your settings. If you are only getting 12 FPS in OS X with a 680, your settings are either completely crazy off the charts unreasonable (i.e., everything at max, every box checked, etc.), you are CPU bound, you have a software driver or XP install (prefs?) issue, or you have a hardware issue...or a combo thereof. I can get 70ish with 10.5rc1 with the Baron at KSEA at default settings (except no ATC or other a/c) letting AI fly my plane using the demo (so others can compare results).
Last edited:
I do not believe that this is correct.
I have not tried with most Keppler cards but with each and every Fermi card I tried, the PCIE 1.0 limitation is "cast in stone" before it gets into Legacy boot mode to run Windows. So cards without EFI fix are locked in to PCIE 1.0 speeds in Windows.
This would not effect Hackintoshes, just the Real McCoy.
I went with the 680 SC without the backplate. I don't need a boot screen. I was curious to know if it would show a boot screen because I thought about getting rid of, selling the 5870. I won't incase OS X has trouble booting, I can put the 5870 back in and see what's going on if I ever need to.
I had the 680 overnighted from amazon, so far so good. However, it does appear that it only runs pci express 1.0 in both os x and windows (bootcamp). The performance even in pci express 1.0 is very good. Much faster than 5870 for what I've tested so far.
That's disappointing.
I was under the impression that Windows under Boot Camp runs video cards just like a regular PC. I guess that's wrong.
Hi, MVC. Just wondering if you've made any progress in regards to getting EFI friendly firmware on the 600-series cards. I'll be in the market for one soon and would prefer a boot screen. Thanks.
I only have 10.10b8, this runs faster than 10.5.rc1
I wonder what you mean by 'Default' settings, not all options have a 'Default' setting.
If I hit the button to reset all settings to minimum I get only 40 fps taxiing at KSEA with Baron letting AI fly my plane. Start from runway.
I use the exact same settings in BootCamp and ML. So if I'm cpu bound on ML why not on Win? If I have a hardware problem, why not on Win? Same hardware.
When I want to check my pci card in Systeminfo I get a message that there was an error collecting info about the PCI-cards.
Does this happen on your system?
Can someone tell me how I can check if my GTX 680 runs at PCI 1.0 or 2.0 speed?
1. 10.5r1 runs faster for me and most others. With XP, or any other app for that matter, stay away from betas. You are only asking for more problems. The exception would be if the release notes indicate that they solve a specific problem you have. XP beta 8 is really buggy. Ver.10 as a whole is still buggy.
2. Other than the built-in framerate test, which is also somewhat broken right now (for me anyway after the GTX upgrade), the only way to compare results with any reliability is for each user to test exactly the same way. What monitor resolution are you running? 1920x1080 for me. Full rez on a 27 inch Apple monitor is not going to yield acceptable FPS for many people. By default settings, in this case I mean what the XP10.5r1 boots at after changing only monitor rez...the way it came from LR when you downloaded it.
3. I think it has been long established that the Nvidia drivers for OpenGL are better in Windows than in OS X. That alone probably explains the difference.
4. Your GTX info will show up under graphics/displays, not pci cards. Yes, I get that error too, but I attributed that to an unsupported (officially) USB 3 card with a beta ML driver.
5. According to MVC, you are running 1.0 on either side. Although stats show it isn't a big deal for almost all apps, XP is probably the exception. There may well be a bus bottleneck on the Mac Pro, but again, how XP transfers data through the CPU/GPU/Mobo depends on your custom settings.
Join the forums at x-plane.org for XP specific advice and troubleshooting. You'll have to deal occasionally with some fanboyism where what you view as a problem in XP just "is what it is," or you may be blamed for wanting too much with too little. Be prepared. Far more often, you'll find knowledgeable, friendly help, and if not, others to wallow in misery with you!
Last edited:
Under OS X:
Oops, that didn't work
Under Windows:
Download TechPowerUp GPU-Z v0.6.4
The Bus Interface will show if the card is running PCIe 1.0 or 2.0. EXAMPLE
Ok, Windows: PCI-E 1.1x16
Thanks for the tip!
@xav8tor: A quick test confirmed that you are right. 10.5r1 is indeed faster.
Rats!
I was just about to pull the trigger on a 680 but now I'll have to rethink it.
I wonder how much faster, if at all, your card would be with PCIe 2.0?
It really depends on what you use your graphics card for. Some cases you might see a difference and some cases not. I know for a fact that for the majority of games, there's only a max 5% average hit going from pcie 2 to 1. Other software that requires more bandwidth could lead to a higher hit
I wouldn't be concerned at all. As pointed out here and elsewhere, the difference between PCI-E 1/2/3 is negligible. The way XP is coded, I'm all but certain there are far more limiting issues besides this. Real world results tend to be not noticed at all. Remember, XP is still piling up the vast majority of its work on a single core. Even in standard benchmarks, the difference is, on average, a low single digit percentage. The 670 upgrade let me max out rendering options, but it was going to the higher clocked 3690 that gave me noticeably more FPS.
See here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2219975
For those wondering about pcie versions and their performance
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html
AS I have noted before, when using Nvidia's "Magic" drivers you will most often NOT be able to see the "PCI Cards" section of system profiler where you would be able to see PCIE speed.
There is a terminal command "lspci -v" that can show you but it needs some googling first for you to be able to run it.
Another option is CUDA-Z as it clearly shows this in the host to device RAM copy speeds.
Numbers in the 2000-3000 MiB/s range are PCIE 1.0, numbers around 5600 MiB/s are PCIE 2.0.
From silvercirlce's post below:
Memory Copy
Host Pinned to Device: 2877.33 MiB/s
Host Pageable to Device: 2595.64 MiB/s
Device to Host Pinned: 2864.73 MiB/s
Device to Host Pageable: 2539.88 MiB/s
So he is running at PCIE 1.0
Obviously if you were using multiple GPUs or running CUDA apps the ability to transfer data through the bus becomes much more important. If it isn't the bottleneck for what you are doing, it is LESS important. But I can't imagine an activity where you would WANT lower bandwidth transfers.
There is a terminal command "lspci -v" that can show you but it needs some googling first for you to be able to run it.
Another option is CUDA-Z as it clearly shows this in the host to device RAM copy speeds.
Numbers in the 2000-3000 MiB/s range are PCIE 1.0, numbers around 5600 MiB/s are PCIE 2.0.
From silvercirlce's post below:
Memory Copy
Host Pinned to Device: 2877.33 MiB/s
Host Pageable to Device: 2595.64 MiB/s
Device to Host Pinned: 2864.73 MiB/s
Device to Host Pageable: 2539.88 MiB/s
So he is running at PCIE 1.0
Obviously if you were using multiple GPUs or running CUDA apps the ability to transfer data through the bus becomes much more important. If it isn't the bottleneck for what you are doing, it is LESS important. But I can't imagine an activity where you would WANT lower bandwidth transfers.