• 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.

Cancelled my GTX 670 order

pc_monkey

pc_monkey

pc_monkey

Associate
Joined
3 Nov 2011
Posts
712
Location
East Anglia
Ordered GTX 670 Windforce last night, but I just cancelled it as I was thinking of waiting for a 4gb version. I think the 4gb will be more future proof. Can't really decide atm, I might order another one later... arrggghhh!!!!
 
Max payne uses 2.7GB at 1440p, you really need to stop giving advice if you dont have first hand experience.

So OP 4gb would be better, except Nvidia are way overpriced and therefore not worth it. For an extra 2GB they're charging an extra £50-100, only fools would consider it!
 
masscrazy said:
Max payne uses 2.7GB at 1440p, you really need to stop giving advice if you dont have first hand experience.

So OP 4gb would be better, except Nvidia are way overpriced and therefore not worth it. For an extra 2GB they're charging an extra £50-100, only fools would consider it!
Click to expand...

then why does the 2gb 670 perform much better than the 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1339406167huP5qqtm9S_2_5.gif

Also if you look here, at 2560x1600 even the 1gb/1.25gb/1.5gb cards are peforming as they should

http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/page5.html
 
Last edited:
What res are you currently playing at, and do you intend on going to a higher res screen or multiple screens?
 
pc_monkey said:
I'm currently playing 1920 X 1200 but I plan to go 3D.
Click to expand...
A single wf 670 copes pretty well at 1920x1200, (same card and res here). Bf3 on max settings im averaging 70fps, card oc'd to +120 core, +760 memory. Vram usage of 1500mb ono.
 
I use 2 460's. no problem maxing any games out at the resolution you are wanting to play, don't waste money if theres no need for it. And i play in 3d
 
From what I have seen of cards using double the standard amount of ram ie 4gb instead of 2gb or on a gtx 580 using 3gb instead of 1.5gb. They often take a small performance hit where they do not clock as high as the standard version. For a single monitor 2gb is plenty.

If you are going to use multi monitors then 4gb would be better.
 
spixelspixel said:
then why does the 2gb 670 perform much better than the 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600
Click to expand...

The main reason being they are both different architectures, the other reason being one dynamically boosts from 915MHz to ~1GHz and the other is tested on a static ~800MHz(don't take this as a ones better than the other, that's not what I'm explaining/talking about).

Regardless whether the extra vram is needed, it's absolutely pointless comparing 2 different architectures in the way you are, much the same as the 6970 v 570 vram arguments of old in regards to BF3.

Now if your examples were of a 2Gb 670 v 4Gb 680 using 8xmsaa then fair enough, take it from there.

Add the fact that 2x6950>70's@stock can play on those settings@1080p(8xmsaa with everything on max), then for the life of me I don't know why both reviews couldn't, they could even have used overclocked cards!
 
Last edited:
Even for 5760 x 1080 2gb cards are more than enough as multi monitors doesn't have that much affect on vram, which is now being shown on the review sites as spixelspixel shows in his links.
 
tommybhoy said:
The main reason being they are both different architectures, the other reason being one dynamically boosts from 915MHz to ~1GHz and the other is tested on a static ~800MHz(don't take this as a ones better than the other, that's not what I'm explaining/talking about).

Regardless whether the extra vram is needed, it's absolutely pointless comparing 2 different architectures in the way you are, much the same as the 6970 v 570 vram arguments of old in regards to BF3.

Now if your examples were of a 2Gb 670 v 4Gb 680 using 8xmsaa then fair enough, take it from there.

Add the fact that 2x6950>70's@stock can play on those settings@1080p(8xmsaa with everything on max), then for the life of me I don't know why both reviews couldn't, they could even have used overclocked cards!
Click to expand...

The cards are around the same performance level. If vram had any impact, the 670 wouldn't have that lead over the 7950.

But yeah, what I'd like to see is two of the same cards (1 standard vs 1 double ram) and see if there is any performance difference.

Maybe this example is better? :D Game is max payne 3

1680x1050
gtx 560 ti (1gb) - 46 fps
gtx 670 (2gb) - 93 fps
difference = 102 percent

2560x1600
gtx 560 ti - 25 fps
gtx 670 - 51 fps
difference = 104 percent

If vram was important the 560ti should be completely crippled as the game apparently uses 2.7gb at this resolution yet its only a 1gb card.
 
Last edited:
I thought there was also something like 'it uses as much as is available', i.e if you have 3gb it might use 3gb but would still be acceptable at 2gb.

Like everyone else has said though, on a single monitor, by the time 4gb is needed, you'll lack gpu power to make it worthwhile anyway.
 
just found these:

image025.png


image025.png


main article


however, those are radeon cards, don't know about Nvidia cards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom