• 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.

**NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 680 4GB ARRIVING NEXT WEEK - PRE-ORDER NOW!!**

bakes0310 said:
Thanks.
Tbh 4gb is more than enough for me at my res so to SLI would be way over the top and wasted.
Click to expand...

Depends on the games you/friends play and from the many reviews I'm now a bit sick of reading, it is after all a lot of money for 4GB and a very desirable one where most complain at 2GB being only just enough. Until the reviews are finally out, I hope they cover custom AA/AF levels to utilise the additional VRAM on single displays as a direct comparison to the 2GB edition.

Performance wise on the AAA+ games - I'm thinking Batman:AC 1080p (yip, only single display) - that is badly coded in my opinion on PC (much like console-ported GTAIV), that performance-sapping game utilises on average only 50% each of a GTX680 in SLI with 1.2GB VRAM total used. A 2GB edition would be plenty there if weren't for the coding, or simply disable Physx. Framerate was a disappointing 61fps using maximum ingame settings, not sure on GTAIV since it's old and we've moved on but I kinda remember VRAM usage on maximum never went above 1.25GB. A single GPU would serve many well with provisions for another into 2013 in these examples

What concerns me moving into 2013 is the likes of the console-ported Crysis 2 with High Res Texture Pack, used 1.8GB VRAM, but maintains a very smooth 90-100fps, Battlefield 3 used 1.5GB with 120fps average. I've seen people post on this forum that a single 2GB GTX680 would be fine on Battlefield 3 with a few display settings turn down than maxing everything, but that defeats the purpose of paying good money to want to do just that. I'm hoping 4GB GTX680 will go some-way to achieving this otherwise it's just asking for an EK block.
 
Any update on when any of these are actually hitting your shelves please Gibbo? I rang to see a day or 2 ago but no update and am very tempted by the 4Gb Palit thanks.
 
Mal X said:
so is 4GB way too much for 1080p even in 3 years time
Click to expand...

Some people might say yes. But wouldn't you rather have what some see as overkill, rather than worry that it might not be enough on the odd game. If I am spending a small fortune on one or two cards, I want them to be nowhere near the limit on vram.

I am not gonna settle for anything less than 3gb if I am gonna part with £400 or more.
 
Cleeecooo said:
probably not, but you'll run into GPU limitations well before that ;)
Click to expand...

not if i get the GTX 690 ;) i suppose it depends what DOOM 4 and Crysis 3 are like, mind you Crysis 3 is similar to the 2nd game and Doom 4 is just a beefed up Rage engine, i cant think of anything else and i'm deffo not a BF3 fan, but i quite like the idea of Bioshock infiity. FAR CRY 3 and Borderlands 2 will be ok as well..... so a GTX 690 is probably not needed, more like the 685 and this will probably come with 4GB of RAM if you like it or not



My new rig, i'll start my own thread soon, it doesn't look like this now, but it gives you an idea, i'm one of those that doesn't like black, except for the sound proofing which looks really nice..
 
Last edited:
Cleeecooo said:
Your 690/680 SLI WILL RUN INTO GPU LIMITATIONS BEFORE VRAM LIMITATIONS!!!!
Click to expand...

i doubt it, i'm on 1080p only, the GTX 690 should last me at least 3 years, even my GTX 8800 lasted 3 years and that aint anywhere near as powerful as this monster on release.
 
Last edited:
As 1GB is only just now (arguably) not enough and pretty much in two-three games only anyway, I'd still say the GPU will fall over before the RAM.
 
Rusty0611 said:
As 1GB is only just now (arguably) not enough and pretty much in two-three games only anyway, I'd still say the GPU will fall over before the RAM.
Click to expand...

yes i agree, but not fall over, more like the 690 will be much slower in 3 to 4 years time, but will still be ok on Medium settings.... and by then i'll be fed up with it anyway, so who cares.

but i dont think we'll see another pc back breaker like the 1st Crysis and most of that was simply bad coding, after all the existing GTX 590 is still ok for another 2 years on 1080p
 
Last edited:
Wow have to agree that's some price for a card:eek:., I know a decent system is going to cost over 1K but I take it when I do move from my seven year only rig that this would be a waste of cash to just play say ARMAIII, BF3 (if they get it workin) Carrier command on just a decent 27” 120Hz screen?

Is it only on Monster screens that these cards are pushed for Vram? And to think my card was £300 quid in its day 256MB 6800GT
 
Rusty0611 said:
It's a lost cause mate.
Click to expand...

Dammit - i'll never give up!!:p

windheaven said:
YOU SURE?

so you're saying for 1080p gaming gtx 680 **2GB**will last me 3 years?
(upgrade intervals)
Click to expand...

no, but i'm saying the 4gb won't last that much longer ;)

My 8800GTX 768mb still plays BF3 1080p low-mid settings. If I had another 2 it would probably play high settings.

Mal X said:
i doubt it, i'm on 1080p only, the GTX 690 should last me at least 3 years, even my GTX 8800 lasted 3 years and that aint anywhere near as powerful as this monster on release.
Click to expand...

The 690 is only going to have 2gb VRAM ya nub!
 
Considering getting a S27A950D, Then possibly down the line getting 2 more for portrait.
Would it be best to go with a 2GB or a 4GB var? With a 120hz display id like to hit 120 fps (BF3).. Would 2 680s be needed?

Final question; How would I get on with rig in sig but with 2 680s and an OC'd 2500k on a TX750?

thanks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom