680 GTX 4 GIG?

[bhavv]

1.5GB is the average VRAM useage for BF3 ultra 1080p with all the BS added in too.

I reckon you can easily get that down to 1 gb without sacrficing too much

Silly VRAM sizes (currently 2.5gb+) are just for multi monitors/1600p

You don't even need that much! The first day since BF3 launched, everysingle bechmark clearly shows that 1280 Mb GTX 570s maintain comfortable minimum FPS of around 30 with just 256 Mb more than 1 Gb cards. Anyone that reckons the FPS increase from a 1 Gb 560 ti to a 1.28 gb 570 is due to the mere 256 Mb increase are delusional, it seems that the GTX 570 / 1280 Mb 560 are simply the minimal amount of raw horsepower required to run the game comfortably.

I don't even know why anyone would recommend 2 Gb 560 tis or 6950s for bf3 when both cards are simply rubbish at the game, even with all that Vram when the 1.28 GTX 560 is only £199. If you need more power than that, 7950 / 7970 / GTX 680 make more sense than either a single 6970 or dual 570s / 6950s at this point.

More than 1280 Mb gram is USELESS on a sub £200 card, these cards don't have enough GPU power to be able to handle that much data, and every one of them is significantly outperformed by a 1280 Mb GTX 560.

 

[REAPERUK]

4GB will work very well but the mem controller with have to change just for the bandwidth other than that there is not point other than usage, that 256bit controller has bottlenecked the kepler allot,

i am waiting to see what happens myself as in BF3 near all my vid mem is used in ultra settings with AA on minimum, not many games use such amount of mem.

 

[Surveyor]

bhavv, you need to edit your post.

1.28 GTX 560

1280 Mb GTX 560

 

[bhavv]

The mem bandwidth on a GTX 680 is the same at that on a GTX 580 due to the faster Vram clock, however I've clearly seen that a single GTX 580 is unable to maintain comfortable FPS in Shogun 2 maxed out.

SSAA is not an excuse for more Vram either, even if you had plenty of Vram, in most cases you will seriously lack the GPU power to run SSAA in a lot of games. SSAA is incredibly wasteful, so much in fact that both ATI and Nvidia have been working on so many different AA implementations like FXAA and MLAA, plus TXAA coming out soon for Nvidia.

The latest drivers on Nvidia cards will add a FXAA setting into the controll panel, hardly anyone has enough money to afford a rig that can run all the latest games with full SSAA, and price difference on 4 Gb GTX 680s will not be worth it exccept for people running triple 1440p monitor setups, in which case good for you that you have the money to burn on that, stop advising the majority of single monitors that they need anymore than 2 Gb for 1440p, or 1.28 gb for 1080p when they absolutely don't for a single game in existance.

 

[bhavv]

bhavv, you need to edit your post.

Why? That's a real card, I hate typing the full name everytime. Blame NVIDIA for any confusion for their name choice. You know what I mean, the 1280 Mb GTX 560 that's really a slightly nerfed GTX 570. Avaible for £199 and comfortably runs everything maxed out up to 1920x1200 resolution.

 

[Surveyor]

Why? That's a real card, I hate typing the full name everytime. Blame NVIDIA for any confusion for their name choice.

You should refer to it as the GTX 560Ti 448 then if that's what you mean.

It's easier to understand what you're on about then.

And we need all the help we can get to understand some of your posts

 

[bhavv]

None of my posts in this section are difficult to understand, nor is it difficult to understand what is meant by a 1280 GTX 560, ** There was no need for that *** . I'm referencing the vram amount on the card, I never liked the name of the card since it released, all it did was add confusion to what should have simply been a GTX 570 SE.

 

[bhavv]

Or maybe I simply stopped viewing the graphics section of this forum, I dont post here very often.

It had nothing to with the benchmarks, they actually support my argument 100% because the 1280 Mb cards are outperforming the 2 Gb ones? How can people not see that, do you need it embedding or something?

1280 Mb outperforms 2 Gb, and somehow people need a minimum of 2 Gb for 1080p, and now they need a minimum of 4 Gb for 1440p?

Where do this 'minimum' figures come from? A faster GPU with more Vram outperforming a slower GPU with less Vram? Thats an absolutely 100% invalid comparison!

a) That comment wasn't in GD

Did I say it was? I was referring to #49 in this thread.

 

[Surveyor]

Let it go now.

Have a nice day.

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Let it go now.

Have a nice day.

I think that is very wise.

Please don't take the bait of those that troll or continue to deliberately cause disruption. Simply ignore them and report them either by emailing a mod or via the RTM system.

 

[HighlandeR]

When are we likely to see 4gig 680GTX cards anyhow and roughly any prices found yet?

 

[laptop1967]

I'm also interested in the 4gb 680GTX, depending how much more they are going to cost

 

[Phil3]

I used MSI afterburner to monitor the graphics card resources.
Launched BF3, MAXXED out all the setting to ULTRA with 4xAA. 2560x1440

I played a round on a 40man server on Gulf on Oman, this was barely/not playable on my single GTX580 3GB.
I'll post the screenshot below. As you can see the usage was well above 2GB.
Today, this is what is putting me off buying a 680. I'm hoping and waiting for a better card to come out later in the year before I take the plunge.

By grumbl3s at 2012-04-03

 

[matchettman]

'I am on 1920x1200, I just like to use one screen. Also, I have DVI cable, does a HDMI make a big difference for games?'

HDMI cable's max res is 1080p right? so this guy better to use his dvi cable instead isn't he?

 

[Phil3]

DVI cable and HDMI cable are the same picture quality, but Dual Link DVI can carry more bandwidth, so carries up to 2560x1600

HDMI 1.4 can carry only 1920x1200 @ 60Hz