• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

685 GTX specs GK110

Neo-Geo said:
Run supersampling at its highest and Ambient occlusion at its highest through nvidia inspector(not the inferior control panel) and watch your 680 crawl.

Infact running supersampling on a game like metro or even crysis(YES CRYSIS) on 4x4,8SQ or 32x will bring a good 680 right down on the fps,more memory is better if you plan to use these features.

Ive said this before in this thread but some people seem to be ignoring it,2GB is not enough if you go down this route.

If you dont plan to use these features then i suggest you go buy a console and sell your pc.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what? Not everyone can afford to spend stupid amounts of money on a pc you know. The last part of your post is just... I don't even know how to describe it. I don't run every game on ultra with my 580, yet I'm not going to sell my pc for a console just because of that.

People just seem to want to make ridiculously controversial posts for attention it seems recently...
 
a680gtx simply doesn't have the grunt to push 32xSSAA in most newer games, and more importantly, 32xaa has minimal IQ improvement over something like, errm, 2xaa. It is categorically NOT memory holding back 32xaa performance(of any kind of AA) its the pure horsepower required, and most importantly it brings no noticeable IQ benefit at all.

There are people who play games, have great performance and are happy, they'll play with 2-4xaa in most situations, 8xaa if its just a daft old game that runs silly fast, not really for IQ but because its the default maxed out option(source games and the like). Then there are people that go around crying because they have a 32xaa option in the control panel and are upset when the game they play runs like turd using it.

The fact that you can't notice the slightest bit of visual difference(except the VASTLY lower framerate) between 4 and 32xaa doesn't matter, these are people who simply can't enjoy a game unless they know they are using a higher level of AA than everyone else.

I know which group of people I belong to and which group I laugh at constantly.
 
Well I for one do not want to sell my PC. I fired up FSX with full ultra everything and it is far from smooth. I turned down a few settings (well the fps limiter did) and good enough for me.
 
I'm one of the first to go chasing better settings or insist on running everything on maximum in game settings... but telling people to play at 32x or get a console is quite possibly the weirdest most ridiculous comment I've seen
 
gregster said:
Well I for one do not want to sell my PC. I fired up FSX with full ultra everything and it is far from smooth. I turned down a few settings (well the fps limiter did) and good enough for me.
Click to expand...

No surprise. Being a sim, FSX is CPU bound, not GPU bound; being FSX also means its horribly optimised if you don't spend time to tweak it correctly.

Having a 680 in FSX means jack all, it will never use the power.
 
Vinni3 @H|H said:
No surprise. Being a sim, FSX is CPU bound, not GPU bound; being FSX also means its horribly optimised if you don't spend time to tweak it correctly.

Having a 680 in FSX means jack all, it will never use the power.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Is this normal or just a Microsoft thing?
 
drunkenmaster said:
a680gtx simply doesn't have the grunt to push 32xSSAA in most newer games, and more importantly, 32xaa has minimal IQ improvement over something like, errm, 2xaa. It is categorically NOT memory holding back 32xaa performance(of any kind of AA) its the pure horsepower required, and most importantly it brings no noticeable IQ benefit at all.

There are people who play games, have great performance and are happy, they'll play with 2-4xaa in most situations, 8xaa if its just a daft old game that runs silly fast, not really for IQ but because its the default maxed out option(source games and the like). Then there are people that go around crying because they have a 32xaa option in the control panel and are upset when the game they play runs like turd using it.

The fact that you can't notice the slightest bit of visual difference(except the VASTLY lower framerate) between 4 and 32xaa doesn't matter, these are people who simply can't enjoy a game unless they know they are using a higher level of AA than everyone else.

I know which group of people I belong to and which group I laugh at constantly.
Click to expand...

Well thats your opinion but saying that 4gb on a card is totally useless like some people are saying is untrue,thats the point i was trying to make.

Lets say your running 8xAA on say Mass effect,the extra 2gb on the card does help it makes the difference in wether you get a constant 40fps or a constant 60fps at all times.

Im not sure wether to wait for the 690 which i will do or wait even longer for the 685,no point me upgrading atm from these 580s.
Waste of time,money and effort.
 
Last edited:
Nocky24 said:
If it drops 680 prices I'll buy another and go sli :)
Click to expand...

Was thinking the same but really don't want to redo my Loop :P

At the moment 2GB is enough when it isn't I'll buy a 685.

I did suspect this would happen like it did with the 280's :/
 
you cant notice everything maxed out anyway, definitely not on a 55'' tv screen, you'll therefore be better off turning down the settings and going for FPS only...

When i get my card...... WHEN :D i'm definitely not running it on maxed out....i'll go for what the PC automatically recommends and leave it at that.... i've never fooled around with the settings.

the only time i notice image quality looking truly fantastic is every 3 years, when i get my new specs :D as for DX9 or DX11, I dont even know what this is and if i did, i probably wouldn't even notice it ;)

no kidding, i only notice my guns, my ammo and where the AI is lurking !!!! ha ha
 
Last edited:
4GB is overkill yes, but you might have no choice if you're after a future proof card, you'll get 4GB if you like it or not, especially in August
 
Mal X said:
4GB is overkill yes, but you might have no choice if you're after a future proof card, you'll get 4GB if you like it or not, especially in August
Click to expand...

We're not saying you should reject a card JUST because of 4gb VRAM, but at the same time, 2gb is enough for 1080p so you don't need to have a 4gb version of the card because you have wasted 2gb VRAM and a lot of money.
 
Am i wrong in thinking that 4GB is useful for triple display?

Some threads i read 4GB is a useless waste, others i see people claim 2GB isn't enough for surround gaming...
Or am i misinterpreting?
 
Joshct said:
Am i wrong in thinking that 4GB is useful for triple display?

Some threads i read 4GB is a useless waste, others i see people claim 2GB isn't enough for surround gaming...
Or am i misinterpreting?
Click to expand...

I think it could be beneficial in the future to have more than 2GB VRAM for multi-monitor gaming. At the moment though, with the games we have now, no - it isn't needed. However, you're going to be close-ish to the limit with three monitors and 2GB VRAM so it makes more sense to consider more in this scenario.

But for 1080p? No way you should consider more than 2GB IMO. Repeating myself now but I still feel based on historical game/GPU progression, the GPU will fall over way, way before the VRAM.
 
Rusty0611 said:
I think it could be beneficial in the future to have more than 2GB VRAM for multi-monitor gaming. At the moment though, with the games we have now, no - it isn't needed. However, you're going to be close-ish to the limit with three monitors and 2GB VRAM so it makes more sense to consider more in this scenario.

But for 1080p? No way you should consider more than 2GB IMO. Repeating myself now but I still feel based on historical game/GPU progression, the GPU will fall over way, way before the VRAM.
Click to expand...


Ok thanks for the clarification...

Still deciding whether to go for triple display or not, will be getting an i5 3570k / 680 2GB build... i was looking at it as 5760*1080 or 1920*1200, couldn't decide if it would be ok on the triple display or not.

Could go single display and have overhead for futureproofing it i guess.
 
Depends on your budget - and how long you want to keep the machine the same without upgrading. I've not got 3 monitors myself so I can't recommend it but a lot of people with 3 are very happy.

If you're not short of a bob or two then just get the 4GB version IMO. Then you can put the VRAM question to bed (triple monitor wise) and when the 680 starts to show its age you can get another and go SLI if needs be :)

2GB is fine for now though if you don't mind changing it around at a later date if it needs to be.
 
Cleeecooo said:
We're not saying you should reject a card JUST because of 4gb VRAM, but at the same time, 2gb is enough for 1080p so you don't need to have a 4gb version of the card because you have wasted 2gb VRAM and a lot of money.
Click to expand...

yes true, but in the future you might have no choice, you might only get 4gb or even more!
 
Mal X said:
you cant notice everything maxed out anyway, definitely not on a 55'' tv screen, you'll therefore be better off turning down the settings and going for FPS only...
Click to expand...

True,bit you can always go sli or tri-sli or even quad sli so you can turn things up again,all depends what you want to do and how you want things to look at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom