As I am going to do a new PC build later this year, I'll be interested in these results. I have seen several "gamer" oriented reviews that also tested "compute" capabilities, and I was not impressed by the compute results. All compute tests except for one were slower than previous gen cards. So, I still hold out hope that the GTX 680 will perform better than the previous gen cards.

As a summary of what I have read:

Power consumption is down quite a bit - TDP is around 195W under load.
Games run faster.

Its not much, I know, but that pretty much sums it up. ;)
____________

... I'll be interested in these results.

I have a bad feeling

WARNING: The GTX 680 is **SLOWER** than the GTX 580

I have a bad feeling

WARNING: The GTX 680 is **SLOWER** than the GTX 580

The GTX680 has 100% more flops and 30% more transistors than the GTX580. We would be happy to have something in between those numbers.

Due to the fact that it requires cuda4.2 which is still experimental we are thinking to release it as a test application.

any result?

Just got my 680 in, unfortuantely I have to have it on Windows for gaming, and would like to know whether or not I should attach it to the project yet? Don't want to be returning a whole bunch of invalid or errors.

It appears that they are Linux only. If I wasn't running out of drive space, i would give this rig the dual-boot, since I now know how to configure it. Don't feel like using usb, since im running wcg currently. Might go pick up a larger SSD in order to accomodate this weekend.

First off let me apologize for the "tone" of my written voice, but after spending 6 hours last night trying to install ubuntu i can say I HATE the "disgruntled" GRUB. Windows 7 install refused to play nice with it. Kept getting grub-efi failed to install on /target error, as well as MANY others. Even went to the trouble of disconnecting my Windows SATA connection, but still kept getting same error on fresh drive. Do to the fact that it is Easter Weekend (and the habit of wanting betas ala WCG), I have decided to unistall Windows 7 in order to accomplish my goal. Since this is mainly a crunching rig (0 files stored internally, I keep all on external encrypted HDDs), and besides the one game 1 game I play (which was ruined due to a recent "patch"), having Windows does nothing for me ATM. Should have this uninstalled shortly, and hopefully with it unistalled maybe GRUB will not be so grumpy (as well as me).


Happy Easter

P,S, Isn't learning fun. ;)

I'm not sure what the situation is. Gianni indicated that he might release a Beta app, and the server status shows 17 beta tasks waiting to be sent. It's been like that for a few days. These might be for Linux only though?

You need the latest drivers, and as far as I am aware, the GTX680 will not run normal or Long tasks. So I suggest you attach to the project, configure a profile to only run Beta's and see if any come your way.

Literally getting ready to de-install before you posted that....... Is that because those beta wu's can't be sent to anyone with the designated platforms unless they have a 680 though, meaning they don't want them to go to people who have the other apps, but without the proper GPU to run them?

EDIT

I wouldn't think they would even bother loading betas unless they were ready to go out. Meaning why bother loading them, if you're still testing in house. I would ASSUME it may not be listed in apps, for reasons stated above. Even though it is odd that nothing is listed, maybe that's just because the app doesn't matter, since this beta is related to hardware?

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2923#24181

Thank you for detailed post. MUCH appreciation.

Any progress?
Could you please share some information about the performance of the GTX 680 perhaps?
I'm afraid that the CPU intensive GPUGrid tasks will suffer much more performance penalty on GTX 680 than on GTX 580 (and on the other CC2.0 GPUs). Maybe an Ivy Bridge CPU overclocked to 5GHz could compensate this penalty.

Besides that fact Zoltan, which from what I can tell, the CPU is basically what's crippling the 680 across the board for every project.

However, I've been steadily re-reading several lines from Anandtech in-depth review about the card itself:

1)Note however that NVIDIA has dropped the shader clock with Kepler, opting instead to double the number of CUDA cores to achieve the same effect, so while 1536 CUDA cores is a big number it’s really only twice the number of cores of GF114 as far as performance is concerned.

So if I am correct, and its 12:22 am so give me a break if im wrong, but since we use shader clock, what this means is that if you were to double the cores of 580 to 1024 you would be operating at 772 Mz. (set rops and everything aside, as crazy as that sounds). You know, I can't figure this math out, but what I will say, as posted earlier the primegrid sieve ran 25% faster on 680 (240s vs 300s) Which to me, I just keep looking at the fact that's roughly the same difference between the 1005Mz clock and the 580's 772. Don't really know where i was going with this, or how i was going to get there, but is that why sieve increased by 25%, and there's also the 20% decrease in TDP. Compared to 580, it has 1/3 more cores than 580 (1536 vs 1024), but a 1/3 less ROPS.

Again sorry for confused typing, its late, but that 25% increase in clock just kept staring at me. My bet goes to the 25% increase until the optimized app comes out to take more advantage of CC3.0

Good night, and I can't wait to see what happens.

: ). If they would have kept that ROP at 48 as with the 580, it would have been 50% faster though , but 25% sounds good to me. Keep up the good work guys can't wait til it's released.

EDIT. Are you guys testing on pci 2 or 3, I've heard additional increases are coming from this, from what I've seen roughly 5% on other sites.

The kepler optimized application is 25% faster than a gtx580 regardless of the processor for a typical WU.

I don't see why the CPU should have any different impact between compared to Fermi.

I brought the the core count up to 1024, instead of 512, since I kept trying to figure out the math for what the improvement was going to be. Meaning, if I doubled the core count, I could do away with the shader clock, as they did in kepler. (i know kepler was quadrupled, but in terms of performance it was just doubled) The math SEEMED to work out ok. So, I was working with 1024 cores working at core clock of 772 meant 1/3 more cores on 680 than 580 (adjusted for the doubled shader freq).This led to a difference in shader clock of 23.2% faster for Kepler (772/1005). Which meant (to me and my 0 engineering knowledge), a benefit of 56.6% (increase in amount of cores*increase in adjusted freq) However, since there are 1/3 less ROPs, that got me down to 23.4% (but if I'm not mistaken, the ROP freq. is calc. off core, and I learned this after adjusting for 570, 480 and 470, once i learned the ROP freq i quit trying)

What's weird, is that this math kept LOOKING correct the further I went. There was roughly a 45% increase compared to a 570 (as shown on sieve tasks), on a 480 in my math it showed an increase of roughly 35%, but compared to a 470 it jumped to 61%.

Again, not an engineer, just someone who had the day off. It strike me as odd though that it seemed to work. But, adding ROPs in may have been the mistake, I honestly don't even know how important they are for what we do. Meaning that since it is coorelated with pixel (again out of my league :) ) it could be like a high memory bandwitdh and not mean as much to us. The 25% increase and 45% were the ones that kept my math skills going, b/c that was what was seen on PPS sieve tasks.

Ah, coincidences..... ;) Oh, and I have been looking for mobo that support 3.0 @ x16,x16 but I think Ive only found one that did and it was like $300, however I refuse to get one that doesn't, merely b/c I want everthing at 100% (even if the extra bandwidth isn't used)

One more thing. I'm assuming Zoltan meant, as he already explained in relation to GPUgrid WUs, that like Einstein apps, have we hit a."wall" to where the CPU matters more than gpu once you reach a certain point. As per his description some tasks are dependent on a fast CPU,someone in other forum is failing tasks because he has a 470 or a 480 can't remember, in a xeon @ 2.5, which is currently causing him issues.

I have a 550 ti and my cpu AMD athlon X4 underclocked to 800 mhz and gpugrid uses only 10% of my cpu (runing in linux)

I doubt that cpu can be an issue, at least with gpugrid app in linux

FYI. Half of your tasks error out.

Oh, and it's not whether or not they'll finish, it's about whether or not the CPU will bottleneck the GPU. I reference Einstein, b/c as mentioned, anything above a 560ti 448 will finish the task in roughly the same GPU time, and what makes the difference in how fast you finish the WU is based off of how fast your CPU is. This can SEVERELY cripple performance.

cuda4.2 is publicly available from nvidia forums but not widely advertised.
You need the latest drivers to run on gtx680.

gdf

The newest R300 series doesn't have the sleep bug, but it is a beta. The 4.2 came out with 295, so it's either beta or wait til WHQL is released. The beta version is 301.24. Or if possible in your situation, you can tell Windows to Never turn off display. This prevents sleep bug, and you can do whatever you want.

Thanks. Now I'll go look for GTX680 specs to see if it will fit the power limits for my computer room, and the length limits for my computers.

Oh, if you're possibly getting a 680, use 301.10

Thanks. Now I'll go look for GTX680 specs to see if it will fit the power limits for my computer room, and the length limits for my computers.

Just a friendly reminder about what you're getting with anything less than 680/670 The 660ti will be based off othe 550ti's board. Depending on each users power requirements. I would HIGHLY reccomend waiting for results from said boards, or would reccomend the 500 series. Since a 660ti will most likely have half the cores, and a 15% decrease in clock compared to 580, this could severely cripple other 600 series as far as crunching is concerned. Meaning, a 560Ti 448 and above will, IMO (I can't stress this enough), probably be able to beat a 660Ti when it's released. Again, IMHO. This is as far as speed is concerned. Performace/watt may be a different story, but a 660ti will be based off of a 550ti specs (keep that in mind)

As always, Happy Crunching

Sorry, meant to say half the cores of the 680 in prior statement. Again, this new design is not meant for crunching, and all boards are effectively "1" off, so 660ti = 550ti BOARD.

Sorry for the typo.

P.S. Hopefully next week Gianni?

my gtx680 didnt compute any work from GPUGrid
i tested it on S@H, it works without problem

so i bought it from US, then send it to Mongolia,
and Mongolia to Korea

fml

my gtx680 didnt compute any work from GPUGrid
i tested it on S@H, it works without problem

Want NOW

50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!! Great work guys!!!! Waiting "patiently"..... :)

Profile has been changed to accept betas only for that rig. Again, 50%!!!!!!!!

Sorry Einstein, but your apps have NOTHING on this jump in performance!! And that doesn't even account for performance/watt. My EVGA step up position in queue better increase faster!!! My 570 is still at #501!!!

Lol. I knew that...... Either way, a lot faster than my 570 that's currently attached! And 160% more efficient is amazing. Again, great work guys!!! Still need to find a mobo for ivy that supports 3.0 at 2 x16.

Wow that is excellent news. I had been waiting for news on this before comitting to my GFX card purchase. You guys rock. Your dedication and speed of reaction is outstanding!

Will the new app also give speed boosts on GTX 570 and 560 cards?

Cheers

Also I have one more question to those in the know. If I run a GTX680 on a PCIE2 motherboard will it take a performance hit on that 150% figure? Could this be tested if you have time GDF - I know its not a high priority but may help people like me who dont have a next gen motherboard make an informed decision.

Cheers

All I can say is on the note about the performance hit is, I'm going to THINK that it won't, PCI 3.0 allows for 16 GB/s in each direction. For what we do, this is A LOT of bandwidth. From the results that I've seen, which are based on games, the performance increase seems to be only 5-7%, if this is the case, I would ASSUME that there wouldn't be that big of a performance hit.

The only reason that I want a PCI 3 mobo, which can run 2 cards at x16 each, is because i play games, well one, and two; because it's just a mental thing for me (meaning running at full capacity) even if it's not noticed. I also don't plan on building another rig for some time, and I would like this one to be top notch ;).

It will MOST LIKELY only make a difference to those who run either a) huge monitors or b) multiple monitors using NVIDIA Surround, which I plan on doing with a 3+1 monitor setup.

Think of it like this, even the biggest tasks for GPUgrid only use a lil over a GB if i'm not mistaken (in memory), the need for 16GB/s is way overpowered I would imagine. I'll let you know how my 680 runs once the beta is out (it's on a PCI 2.0 mobo currently)

In regards to the PCI 3.0 running 2x16. If I am reading this correctly, am I gonna be "forced" to get a SB-E now, and would most likely get the 3930K, since 3820 isn't unlocked, and that's what I would prefer? http://www.anandtech.com/show/4830/intels-ivy-bridge-architecture-exposed

Further, since IB-E won't be released until MAYBE Q3-Q4, probably towards christmas would be my guess, and won't really offer any benefit besides a die shrink.

I guess this explains why I was having a hard time finding a PCI 3.0 2x16 mobo. Wow, my idea of 100% GPU functionality just increased the price by about another $250. Hmmmm...

Oh, and I found this on andantech (though it's for AMD GPU)

Simply enabling PCIe 3.0 on our EVGA X79 SLI motherboard (EVGA provided us with a BIOS that allowed us to toggle PCIe 3.0 mode on/off) resulted in a 9% increase in performance on the Radeon HD 7970. This tells us two things: 1) You can indeed get PCIe 3.0 working on SNB-E/X79, at least with a Radeon HD 7970, and 2) PCIe 3.0 will likely be useful for GPU compute applications, although not so much for gaming anytime soon.

Doesn't list what they ran or any specs though

EDIT. Well it appears the 3820 can OC to 4.3 which would be most for what I need. Wouldn't mind having a 6 core though. 4 extra threads for WUs would be nice but not mandatory. At $250 at MicroCenter, quite a nice deal.

Hi, An interesting comparison NVIDIA vs AMD; GTX680/580 versus HD6970/7970.

Makes it quite clear the poor performance of GTX680 in FP64 and best performance in the HD6970/7070 MilkyWay. Greetings.

http://muropaketti.com/artikkelit/naytonohjaimet/gpgpu-suorituskyky-amd-vs-nvidia

Less is better

Glad we do FP32

Further the 680 has only 8 FP64 cores, which arent included in its core count, which run at full speed compared to the reduced speed of previous generations.

EDIT. Well it appears the 3820 can OC to 4.3 which would be most for what I need. Wouldn't mind having a 6 core though. 4 extra threads for WUs would be nice but not mandatory. At $250 at MicroCenter, quite a nice deal.

IB is not going to beat ANY SB-E. It's slight performance improvement and energy savings may very well be negated by its ability to OC less than Sandy (what I've read anyways).

The real advantage of Ivy will come from it's PCIE 3 support, but since SB-E already has this, plus with the ability to natively support 40 lanes instead of 1155 CPUs 16 is my MAIN reason.

We power users probably won't see improvement, if any, until Haswell? is released, the next "tock" phase.

I know patience is a virtue, and I REALLY hate to ask GDF, but........... how's the progress on the beta app coming.

Truly itching to bring my 680 over to you guys. :)

As always, you guys do a great job, and I can't wait to hear about how the experiment with the cystallographers works out!!

Keep it up!!

Better than the ATi version, probably.

Thanks for the update, always appreciated.

I've read the Linux drivers are pretty shotty (bad) as well. Windows aren't too bad, but are still not great unfortunately.

Wish you the best of luck, know you guys want to get it out

One question when you get the time, if I'm correct this app will be 4.2 but in another thread you ( or one of you) mentioned cuda 5. Any big changes that will effect this project down the road?

This will be cuda4.2. If I mentioned cuda5 was by mistake.
Later on we will also probably drop cuda3.1 in favor of cuda4 to make sure that people don't need the latest driver version.

gdf

Someone's running betas.......

http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=108890

:-)

Butuz

Not entirely sure why you posted that individuals user id, App page still says nothing new is out for beta testing. Hoping this means they finally got their linux drivers working properly and are finally testing in house.

Maybe tomorrow?

EDIT: Tried to grab some on Windows, and still none available. Someone is definately grabbing and returning results though.

I think it means the new app will be 17% faster on a GTX580, and a GTX680 on the new app will be 50% faster than a GTX580 on the present app.
That would make the GTX680 ~28% faster than a GTX580 on the new app.

new app on gtx 580 115 ns/day
new app on gtx 680 150 ns/day

I would like to know.what limits performance as.well, but.the shader clock speed is.actually lower. Remember you have to.double others clock to get shader clock, so 680 =1.1 ghz on boost while 580 stock 772*2 for shader clock. Also more efficient. Running a 3820 @ 4.3 on wcg, and Einstein with gpu at 80% utilization. This system currently only uses 300 W

Actually this is the worst news we could have regarding the GTX 680's shader utilization. My bad feeling about the GTX 680 have come true.
150ns/115ns = 1.30434, so there is around 30.4% performance improvement over the GTX 580. But this improvement comes only from the higher GPU clock of the GTX 680, because the clock speed of the GTX 680 is 30.3% higher than the GTX 580's (1006MHz/772MHz = 1.3031)
All in all, only 1/3 of the GTX 680's shaders (the same number as the GTX 580 has) can be utilized by the GPUGrid client at the moment.
It would be nice to know what is limiting the performance. As far as I know, the GPU architecture is to blame, so the second bad news is that the shader utilization will not improve in the future.

I think you should count your lucky stars we are seeing any improvements at all let alone MASSIVE improvements in crunch/per watt used.

The only "issue" I have with the new series, is that it will be on boost 100% of the time, with no way to change it. The card uses 1.175 v and runs at 1105 Mhz in boost (specific to each card) with the amount of stress we put these things through, and that Maxwell will not be out til 2014 I actually paid EVGA $25 to.extend the 3 year to 5. Plan on having these at LEAST til 2015, since i will have both cards be 600 series, bought one and step uped a 570. Whenever Maxwell or 7xx series comes out ill buy more, but these will be in one system or another for quite some time. Even though temps at 80% utilization are 48-50, I'm not taking any chances with that high of a voltage 24/7/365

EDIT why does everyone keep saying the clock is.faster? The core and shader clock.is the same. Since we use shader clock its actually slower at 1.1 Ghz compares to what 1.5Ghz on.the 580. And the 680 is 500, the 690 is $1000

EDIT AGAIN: If you already own say 5 580's or whatever, AND live in a place with high electricity, considering used cards can still get roughly $250, you MAY actually be able to recover the costs of electricity alone, let alone the increased throughput. AGAIN, the SHADER CLOCK is 39.% SLOWER, not faster. 1.1Ghz Shader on 680 vs 1.544Ghz on the 580 (core 2x). CORE clock is irrelevant to us. Am I missing something here?

why does everyone keep saying the clock is.faster? The core and shader clock.is the same. Since we use shader clock its actually slower at 1.1 Ghz compares to what 1.5Ghz on.the 580.
....
AGAIN, the SHADER CLOCK is 39.% SLOWER, not faster. 1.1Ghz Shader on 680 vs 1.544Ghz on the 580 (core 2x). CORE clock is irrelevant to us. Am I missing something here?

No, voltage monitor does not efffect this card whatsoever. Some say you can limit it by limiting the power usage monitor, but since we put a different kind of load on the chip, at 80% utilization , mine is on boost with only 60% power load. I've tried offseting down to base clock (-110) but voltage was still at 1.175.

It bothers me a lot too, I mean my temps are around 50, but as i said before this is why I paid EVGA another $25 to extend the warranty to 5 years. If it does eventually bust, wouldn't be my fault.

just skimming this im getting alot of mixed signals, i read that theres a 50% increase on the 680, and also that the coding on the 680 almost isnt worth it, while i know its just come out, should I be waiting for a 600 or not?

..... should I be waiting for a 600 or not?

Don't know if this is relevant for what we do, but someone just posted this on NVIDIA forums:

It seems that integer multiply-add (IMAD) on GTX 680 runs 6x slower than in single precision floating point (FFMA). Apparently, only 32 cores out of 192 on each SM can do it.

A power user for Berkeley wrote this, AGAIN DON'T KNOW IF IT"S CORRECT OR RELEVANT FOR WHAT WE DO, BUT CONSIDERING THE TOPIC ABOUT COMPUTE CAPABILITIES, FIGURED I WOULD POST IT.

well 50% increase in compute speed sounds good to me, especially since nvidia had, not sure if they still do, 620 driver link on there site as someone here noted. but if it comes down to it i guess a new 570 probably wont be a bad deal.

I wish the latest Intel processors were only 50% faster!

If it's faster here then it's a good card for here.
For each GPU project different cards perform differently. AMD chose to keep their excellent level of FP64 in their top (enthusiast) cards (HD 7970 and 7950), but dropped FP64 to really poor levels in their mid and range cards (HD 7870, 7850, 7770 and 7750; all 1/16th).

It's not actually a new thing from NVidia; the CC2.1 cards reduced their FP64 compared to the CC2.0 cards (trimmed the fat), making for relatively good & affordable gaming cards, and they were popular.
I consider the GTX680 more of an update from these CC2.1 cards than the CC2.0 cards. We know there will be a full-fat card along at some stage. It made sense to concentrate on the gaming cards - that's were the money's at. Also, NVidia have some catching up to do in order to compete with the AMD's big FP64 cards.
NVidia's strategy is working well.

By the way, the GTX690 offers excellent performance per Watt compared to the GTX680, which offers great performance to begin with. The GTX690 should be ~18% more efficient.

I posted a question in regards to GPU Boost on NVIDIA's forums, and the high voltage given to the card (1.175) and my concerns about this running 24/7, and asking (pleading) that we should be allowed to turn Boost off.

An Admins response:

Hi 5pot,

I can understand about being concerned for the wellbeing of your hardware, but in this case it is unwarranted. :) Previous GPUs used fixed clocks and voltages and these were fully guaranteed and warrantied. GPU Boost has the same guarantee and warranty, to the terms of your GPU manufacturer's warranty. :thumbup: The graphics clock speed and voltage set by GPU Boost is determined by real-time monitoring of the GPU core and it won't create a situation that is harmful for your GPU.

Amorphous@NVIDIA

Figured I would share this information with everyone else here

Hi Robert,
At present there is nothing below a GTX680, but there will be.
GeForce GT 630 and GT 640 cards will come from NVidia in the next few months.

Hi Robert,
At present there is nothing below a GTX680, but there will be.
GeForce GT 630 and GT 640 cards will come from NVidia in the next few months.

you will defintely have to have a close look what you get there:


http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-640-oem/specifications

6 different versions under the same label!

mixed up, mungled up, fraudulent - at least potentially. :(

I see only three versions there, but definitely mixed up.

However, a GT 645 is also listed now, and short enough that I might find some brand that fill fit in my computer that now has a GTS 450.

I see only three versions there, but definitely mixed up.

take a closer look!

it's 2 kepler's and 1 fermi.

it's 1 or 2 - or 1,5 of 3GB or ram.

+ DDR3 vs. DDR5.

and that's only the suggested specs - OEM's are free to do whatever they want according to clock-rates..

However, a GT 645 is also listed now, and short enough that I might find some brand that fill fit in my computer that now has a GTS 450.

if you want a rebranded GTX560se..

I see nothing about it that says Fermi or Kepler. But if that's correct, I'll probably wait longer before replacing the GTS 450, but check if one of the Kepler GT 640 versions are a good replacement for the GT 440 in my other desktop.

These have already been released as OEM cards. Doesn't mean you can get them yet, and I would still expect retail versions to turn up, but exactly when I don’t know.
Anything that is PCIE2 probably has a 40nm Fermi design. Anything PCIE3 should be Kepler.

just skimming this im getting alot of mixed signals, i read that theres a 50% increase on the 680, and also that the coding on the 680 almost isnt worth it, while i know its just come out, should I be waiting for a 600 or not?

Unfortunately, both Nvidia and AMD are now locking out reasonable BOINC upgrades for users like me who are limited by how much extra heating the computer room can stand, and therefore cannot handle the power requirements of any of the new high-end cards.

Any news about GpuGRID support for GTX 680 (under linux) ?

Thx

CUDA4.2 comes in the drivers which support cards as far back as the GeForce 6 series. Of course GeForce 6 and 7 are not capable of contributing to GPUGrid. So the question might be, will GeForce 8 series cards still be able to contribute?

670's are looking to perform AT LEAST at 580 levels if not better, and with a GIANT decrease in power consumption. They come out Thursday.

EDIT: Any chance we could get an update on new app? ETA or how things are moving along? Know you guys are having issues with drivers, but an update would be appreciated.

Thanks, keep up the hard work.

How is DP performance on 670s? Given DP performance on 680s, I would expect that DP performance on the 670 would be worse than the 680.

I know power consumption is not optimal on the 580 compared to the 600 series in most "gamer" reviews that I have seen, however, I chose the 580 since I run a project that requires DP capability. For projects that require DP capability, I would not be surprised if the 580 is more efficient, power consumption wise, than any of the 600 series as the 680's DP benchmarks are a fraction of the 580's DP benchmarks. On the project I run, Milkyway, I am seeing a similar 2.5 - 3x performance gain with the GTX 580 over my GTX 460 .

Unfortunately, anyone considering a GPU has many factors to consider and that only makes the task of choosing a GPU harder and more confusing.

For a GPU dedicated to GPUGrid, a 600 series card may be an optimal choice; however, for anyone running projects that require DP capability, 600 series may be disappointing at best.
____________

Agreed. Do not even consider 6xx if your looking for DP

How is DP performance on 670s? Given DP performance on 680s, I would expect that DP performance on the 670 would be worse than the 680.

Any news about GpuGRID support for GTX 680 (under linux) ?

Glad to hear it. Windows as well?