1 00:00:07,200 --> 00:00:16,320 Now, the purpose of this video is fairly simple. Because of its extremely 2 00:00:12,719 --> 00:00:18,480 scarce availability, the GTX 690, you 3 00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:21,439 know, isn't as popular as people would like for it to be. There's lots of 4 00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:26,800 people out there, I know this for a fact, who want to buy a GTX 690, who 5 00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:33,920 want the ultimate performance, but cannot find one in stock. anywhere. So, 6 00:00:30,960 --> 00:00:39,600 I have one here today and I want to treat this video as sort of a um a what 7 00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:43,760 can you do if you want ultimate performance and can't get a GTX 690 sort 8 00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:47,440 of video. So, it has come to my attention that depending on which 9 00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:52,559 retailer you look at, NCIX not being the one that I'm referring to here, a GTX 10 00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:56,800 690 can go for as much as $1,200, which 11 00:00:52,559 --> 00:00:58,879 is almost exactly the price of three GTX 12 00:00:56,800 --> 00:01:06,479 670s. So, this is going to be a head-to-head comparison in my most 13 00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:10,000 recent um in my most recent 14 00:01:06,479 --> 00:01:14,560 suite of benchmarks between 3-way SLI 15 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:17,040 GTX 670s and a single GTX 690. I think 16 00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:20,720 we all probably know which one's likely to win at this point, but in case you 17 00:01:18,799 --> 00:01:23,840 don't, that is the purpose of doing these kinds of tests. So, I don't know 18 00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:28,000 if you can see my Fraps meter in the corner there. Look at that. It's like 19 00:01:25,439 --> 00:01:30,240 exactly where the light is making it so you can't see it. Whatever. I'll tell 20 00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:37,360 you what it says. So, this is Battlefield 3. All of the tests are going to be run at 1080p. Yes, I am 21 00:01:34,799 --> 00:01:41,280 aware that 1080p isn't necessarily I actually don't know which way I'm going 22 00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:48,399 anymore. I am aware that 1080p is not necessarily the ideal resolution for, 23 00:01:46,159 --> 00:01:53,680 you know, very high-end graphics card setups. However, I did notice that we do 24 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:57,680 see scaling in some of the games that I've tested already where we're seeing 25 00:01:56,000 --> 00:02:03,040 more than double the performance in 3-way SLI as we're seeing with a single 26 00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:06,799 card. So, that is a very positive indicator. I'm using the brand new 27 00:02:04,799 --> 00:02:12,400 driver from NVIDIA released on May 22nd. So, this is their R300 driver. This is a 28 00:02:09,039 --> 00:02:14,319 WLE driver that supports uh the GTX 670 29 00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:19,040 and the GTX 690. You can see I'm getting aboutund 30 00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:22,400 195 FPS in Battlefield 3. This is all on ultra settings, so I'm going to be 31 00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:28,239 maxing out every game, uh, The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, The Elder Scrolls, 32 00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:30,000 Skyrim, and Crisis 2, and bringing you 33 00:02:28,239 --> 00:02:36,480 guys the numbers head-to-head between these two very ultimaty solutions. Now, 34 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:41,120 I had really wanted to test 35 00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:45,760 four-way SLI, but I actually didn't realize that the 670 does not support 36 00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:48,400 four-way SLI. So, one of these cards is not on the bench, and we're just going 37 00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:53,519 with these three. So, I have my reference card, my Galaxy card, and my 38 00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:58,800 other more different Galaxy card. The one that looks like this with the 39 00:02:54,640 --> 00:03:01,200 glowing logo. Pretty sweet. 40 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:05,599 So, I'm finished my testing with the GTX 690. So, in case you guys were wondering 41 00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:11,280 what a GTX 690 looks like on the test bench, it's a little something like 42 00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:12,640 that. Looks pretty cool. Let's turn off 43 00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:18,319 the lights. You can see the glowing GeForce logo here, which glows very 44 00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:22,159 strongly and looks very cool as well. One's pretty toasty. 45 00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:30,000 Little bit of coil wine. Not too bad. Not as bad as uh my 680 or uh or any of 46 00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:31,680 my 670s, but not as good as 590, which 47 00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:38,000 had absolutely no coil wine. At least the one that uh that I have. Um 48 00:03:36,319 --> 00:03:42,720 overall, not that loud though. about pretty similar to GTX 590 in terms of 49 00:03:40,959 --> 00:03:48,319 the actual fan speed. Still got a game running on it right now. Definitely 50 00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:50,480 quieter than the 3-way GTX 670 solution 51 00:03:48,319 --> 00:03:57,439 and uh consumes less power, but remember it's two GPUs versus three GPUs. And I I 52 00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:59,920 see that that's five video cards, but I was only running three of them at a 53 00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:05,599 time. So, I'm just going to make up my little graphs and then we're good to go after I tell you the test bench, of 54 00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:12,239 course. So, this is a Radeon radio and radon nothing. uh Core i7 3930K at 4.4 55 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:18,560 GHz with 16 gigs of Kingston HyperX RAM at DDR3600 56 00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:20,320 megahertz. I also have a Mushkin Kronos 57 00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:24,000 Deluxe drive in there and I've got my Gigabyte 58 00:04:21,840 --> 00:04:30,639 uh what is this thing? It's a GA something or other X79 59 00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:32,639 UD7. So, this is up to a 4-way SLI 60 00:04:30,639 --> 00:04:40,000 Crossfire X capable motherboard, and it's all powered by an OCZ ZX series 61 00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:42,479 1250 watt power supply. Easily capable 62 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:46,880 of powering those three GPUs. Actually, you know what? It's uh 2:00 in the 63 00:04:45,440 --> 00:04:52,320 morning and I'm actually really tired, so I'm not going to make graphs, you guys. You'll just have to bear with me. 64 00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:58,160 So, here we go. Um, I actually have an upcoming video where I plan to do some 65 00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:59,840 GTX 670 versus Radeon 7970 scaling, 66 00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:03,840 which will be really cool. So, 1, two, and three-way configurations for both, 67 00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:08,960 seeing how they compare. But for this one, we're just looking at three times 68 00:05:05,440 --> 00:05:11,120 GTX 670s versus a single GTX 690. What 69 00:05:08,960 --> 00:05:16,240 is the better value proposition? So, you can see here in Crisis 2, the uh 3-way 70 00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:20,720 SLI configuration actually has a lower overall minimum, but a higher overall 71 00:05:19,199 --> 00:05:25,360 average, but not by much. We're talking a 5% performance advantage. In 72 00:05:23,199 --> 00:05:31,840 Battlefield 3, the 6 the 3x 670 solution just destroys 73 00:05:29,280 --> 00:05:35,840 the single 690. So, this is excellent scaling that we're seeing in this 74 00:05:33,199 --> 00:05:41,759 particular game. Um, I mean, we've got an additional 25 to 30% performance, 75 00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:46,720 probably about 25% performance from adding that additional GPU. So, that is 76 00:05:43,919 --> 00:05:49,520 a pretty good example of of of excellent scaling there. And you can see the 77 00:05:47,759 --> 00:05:56,240 minimum is even higher. That's more like 40%. Outstanding. Skyrim. Yeah, those 78 00:05:53,759 --> 00:06:00,400 look pretty similar to me within margin of error on this side. However, that 79 00:05:58,160 --> 00:06:07,680 minimum frame rate is very different. So, the GTX 690 was uh actually well the 80 00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:12,080 3-way SLI configuration was about 35% higher than the GTX 690 in terms of 81 00:06:09,759 --> 00:06:18,160 minimum FPS. And I did notice that when I was actually using it. Uh, Witcher 2 82 00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:21,039 is another one that uh, scaled okay in 83 00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:24,880 terms of averages with the 3 by GTX 670 configuration, but the minimum was a 84 00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:29,520 little bit lower. Well, quite a bit lower. But something to bear in mind about these minimums is sometimes when 85 00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:36,080 you're benchmarking, your frame rates will dip for sort of no reproducible or 86 00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:38,639 easily explainable reason. And uh, so there's a little bit of that to bear in 87 00:06:37,280 --> 00:06:44,000 mind as well. Personally, I know minimums are important to a lot of people, but personally, I put more 88 00:06:41,759 --> 00:06:48,639 weight into the averages, especially because of the way I'm collecting data 89 00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:50,720 with Fraps. Um, you can get a minimum 90 00:06:48,639 --> 00:06:54,080 that gets, you know, if both cards dip like this, you can get one of them that 91 00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:58,240 records at the very bottom of the dip because it happens to fall on that split 92 00:06:56,400 --> 00:07:00,880 second and one of them that falls here, but that doesn't mean the dip didn't 93 00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:06,080 happen. So, something to bear in mind about Fraps frame rate recording. So, 94 00:07:03,199 --> 00:07:13,840 thank you for checking out my 3-way GTX 670 versus GTX 690 performance review. I 95 00:07:11,039 --> 00:07:17,360 think that we can see that 38 by GTX 670 is a very viable option if you really do 96 00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:21,680 want the ultimate performance and you can't get your hands on one of these bad 97 00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:24,720 boys. Don't forget to subscribe to Linus Tech Tips.