NVIDIA 680i: The Best Core 2 Chipset?
by Gary Key & Wesley Fink on November 8, 2006 4:45 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
General System Performance
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. The test is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of graphics subsystems, CPU, hard disk, and memory configurations along with multithreading results. In this sense we consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature while providing consistency in our benchmark results.
The 680i leads the PCMark 2005 results, but scores are close at the top. While the 975X/P965 and 680i are close in performance, the 680i provides a slight edge in General Performance - about 1% which can be considered negligible.
General Graphics Performance
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apple to apple comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
Our nForce 680i SLI results are essentially the same as the performance of the 590 and Intel 975x/965 families. Since the most recent 3DMark06 is very tied to the GPU, this does not come as much of a surprise.
Rendering Performance
The Cinebench 9.5 benchmark heavily stresses the CPU subsystem while performing graphics modeling and rendering. We utilize the standard benchmark demos along with the default settings. Cinebench 9.5 features two different benchmarks with one test utilizing a single core and the second test showcasing the power of multiple cores in rendering the benchmark image.
The nForce 600i desktop platform shows competitive performance in these benchmarks. The range of results are not performance differences you will see looking at the daily performance of 975X and 680i systems.
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. The test is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of graphics subsystems, CPU, hard disk, and memory configurations along with multithreading results. In this sense we consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature while providing consistency in our benchmark results.
The 680i leads the PCMark 2005 results, but scores are close at the top. While the 975X/P965 and 680i are close in performance, the 680i provides a slight edge in General Performance - about 1% which can be considered negligible.
General Graphics Performance
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apple to apple comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
Our nForce 680i SLI results are essentially the same as the performance of the 590 and Intel 975x/965 families. Since the most recent 3DMark06 is very tied to the GPU, this does not come as much of a surprise.
Rendering Performance
The Cinebench 9.5 benchmark heavily stresses the CPU subsystem while performing graphics modeling and rendering. We utilize the standard benchmark demos along with the default settings. Cinebench 9.5 features two different benchmarks with one test utilizing a single core and the second test showcasing the power of multiple cores in rendering the benchmark image.
The nForce 600i desktop platform shows competitive performance in these benchmarks. The range of results are not performance differences you will see looking at the daily performance of 975X and 680i systems.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
StriderGT - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
Also, some Intel chipset fans believe that Intel chipsets are best for a rock solid system (for the record, I'm not one of these people), I guess we'll see if nVidia will change thier minds.No it won't, its the same group of people that suggested the P4 was a more "stable" platform than the Athlon 64 platform. Its simply a psychological state of denial, when someone has paid more for less needs an excuse: "Stability"
skrewler2 - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I agree with you on your two points.I also wish PM tech was standardized.. I just went through a headache researching what was compatible with what chipset etc, imo it should just all work. From what I understand, the SATA II standard isn't even really a standard at all.. anyways I agree that NV should start implementing Port Multiplier support!
yyrkoon - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
Yeah, I recently bought a budget Asrock board that SUPPOSEDLY supported SATAII connections. As per the standard, SATAII is supposed to support native command queuing (NCQ), and up to 3Gbit/s throughput on each connector. Anyhow this motherboard does not support NCQ . . . which is the majority of the reason to own a SATAII drive / interface, the rest is basicly marketing hype.Kougar - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
Wanted to point out all the tables on the Memory Performance page are mislabled as "980i".Also some power consumption figures would be good, even if not critical. With a chipset cooler that huge it's about a giveaway it is hiding a nice and crispy chipset! ;) Thanks for the article!
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
The perils of Table cut-and-paste are now corrected.Please see comments above above Power Consumption. That information will be added to the review since several have requested it.
Avalon - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I was much more interested in the 650i Ultra boards, specifically how well they overclocked compared to the 680i you benched. Additionally, do you think it's necessary for an active fan cooling the northbridge when highly overclocked on this chipset, or does it run fairly cool?Gary Key - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
We will not have 650i boards until early December for review. The fan is required for upper-end 24/7 overclocking in my opinion, otherwise the board ran fine without it.yzkbug - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
tables in page 10: NVIDIA 980i -> NVIDIA 680iShoNuff - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I'm impressed with the review. It was very thorough. In particular, I was amazed at your overclock with the X6800. I am looking forward to getting one of these boards in my hands.
It appears that NVIDIA has done it this time with respect to the on board memory controller. It is hard to imagine things getting better when the OEM's add their nuances to this board. If results are this good based upon the reference design, it is almost scary thinking about how good a board DFI would/could produce.
Oh…and btw…I like the new location of the front panel connectors. The new location will make it easier to "stealth" the wires.
hubajube - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
These are ass-kicking OC's!!! Can't wait to own this board.