Published on 13th June 2012 by
Originally Posted by GuinevereQuote:Originally Posted by m0ngyAlso, why does my browser get spammed with endless pop-ups and super annoying full-screen questionnaires whenever I visit your website?
Because you're machine has caught a nasty dose of malware or "super smiley search helper super duper plugin disease". BT has the very very occasional annoying advert which the team jump on as soon as it's spotted but nothing like the dross you're talking about.
Originally Posted by m0ngyAlso, why does my browser get spammed with endless pop-ups and super annoying full-screen questionnaires whenever I visit your website?
Originally Posted by CrazyJoeMaybe you've got an ad blocker then.
Originally Posted by mclean007$1,049.99 (Newegg price) at current exchange rate (1.55477 per xe.com) is £675.32. Add 20% UK VAT to this and you get to £810.38, which is less than 10% off the UK price of £879.99 quoted on Dabs. The rest of the difference is down to reduced volumes in the UK market, higher wages for staff in the UK supply chain than the US (i.e. we have a higher minimum wage) and the mandatory 1 year warranty that must be given in the UK, as against typical 3 month warranty in the USA.
Originally Posted by Gareth HalfacreeDon't forget import tax, which can be as high as 15%. I tried to look up computer components on the Trade Tariff for the actual figure, but the site's on a total go-slow today.
Originally Posted by m0ngyI'm amazed Bit-tech even bothers to do a review of a product released more than a month ago. Alternatively, why is your review a month late?
Originally Posted by AracosI swear the 690 was released a LONG time ago. What changed?
Originally Posted by BazOur current test rig, upon which we've tested for the last 18 months, doesn't support SLI, so no 680 SLI numbers just yet. We'll be rebuilding the GFX rigs this summer, along with fully updating the games and resolutions at which we test. Discussion thread regarding this soon.
Originally Posted by BazThe GTX 690 was released with zero notice, and on the same week as the 670. We prioritised the 670 as it had a larger appeal to have our launch coverage ready, and had to put the 690 review back a few weeks to meet other deadlines; check the 670 review and you'll see the 690 results there in the graphs. Why publish a review at all? Because it's still a relevant product for our readers, albeit a very niche one.
Bit-tech is run by a team of dedicated tech journalists who care greatly about the site, and we want to deliver as much content as possible to readers, even if it is a few weeks late!
Originally Posted by shirtyWe're looking specifically at you, Razer Black Widow.
Nvidia claimed the GTX 690 would deliver the performance of two GTX 680s and, for once, a manufacturer's boasts weren't entirely made of hot air.
Originally Posted by 1-0-1The amount of hype and marketing fluff surround the GPU market is amazing. It is the fastest but it hardly double the performance of a GTX 680. This statement reminds me of the NVIDIA OPS suggestion which a most of the time cannot be any further from the truth since they you indicate maximum FPS but what is more important for you gaming experience, forget to mention the average FPS.
Originally Posted by 1-0-1No problem - but I think then I am understanding something really wrong here about the double statement. Let's say for instance the minimum framrate for a 680 would be 60 FPS in a pseudo game. According to the double performance claim, the 690 should then have at least over 120 FPS?
But yes - point tanken about the minimum framerate being a better indication on gaming experience.
... and by the way I really hope you joked about the card costing a month worth of food as that amount seems closer to 10 months worth of food for a family of three here :|
Originally Posted by general22Late reviews are fine but why even do a late review if they are totally useless. There are no SLI/CF numbers here which makes it impossible to compare the GTX690 to its nearest competitors from either camp. Also on the power and thermals page the GTX690 isn't highlighted in the load temperature graphs.
It is also incredibly puzzling that the GPU test rig doesn't support SLI.
Originally Posted by lots of people mean words
Originally Posted by fdbh96Quote:Originally Posted by AracosI swear the 690 was released a LONG time ago. What changed?
See Baz's post 3 above....
Originally Posted by BazThanks for your comments.
Sourcing the board obvious isn't be the issue; retesting 20+ graphics cards on it for comparison results would be. It takes 2-3 hours to test a graphics card, so that's 60 hours (8 days) of solid work, before you factor in multi-GPU (so that's another 60hrs, just for 2 card setups). Our time isn't infinite, so we tend to leave hardware updates to once a year at most.
Over the last 4 years, bit-tech has specifically not tested multi-GPU setups due to scaling, driver and reliability problems, not to mention the additional time required to test the various GPU setups (GTX 680, 2x GTX 680, 3x GTX 680 and 4x GTX 680 is at least 12 hours of testing). I'm looking to change this soon if time allows.
In the end though, you're all consumers of our content and the "I don't care principle" comes into play; you dont care about my explanations or excuses, you want content. In this case, we simply were not able to get this review up sooner, and I'm sorry its lateness has upset you so much. In the end, would it have been better not to publish a review at all? I don't think so.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
6th February 2016
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech