gtx 680 or gtx 690

[Ollie1132]

Slightly more when both overclocked. But true the differences aren't huge. They are still the faster card though.

In your eyes it might not be worth the extra money but to the next guy the extra £100 or whatever is pocket money.

I bought my reference 680 on release day so was locked into getting another upon moving to SLI. But I don't feel like I've had my pants pulled down by the price. In fact the opposite. I'm very satisfied.

I know what you mean. But you bought it before 670 release so it is understandable. the 670s are pretty much just binned 680s remember. (at least the 680 pcb ones are) I would still love to know if its possible to flash a 680 BIOS onto it

 

[Rusty0611]

Shaders have been lasered off so there wouldn't be much point.

 

[Ollie1132]

Aww. Still epic cards either way

 

[Nickolp1974]

Ah. Still so much money for about 10% increase. Makes the 680 such bad bang for buck

Very true, but bang for buck i'd go with the 7970(which i did), the vram may not be an issue now on 2gb models but in a years time who knows, and to get the futureproof privalige with nvidia you got to pay upto £100 more and beyond,

670 4gb £400
680 4gb £500
7970 3gb £320

When all are oc'ed very little in performance, best bang for buck = AMD

 

[Rusty0611]

Very true, but bang for buck i'd go with the 7970(which i did), the vram may not be an issue now on 2gb models but in a years time who knows, and to get the futureproof privalige with nvidia you got to pay upto £100 more and beyond

This argument is inherently flawed.

Even moving forward, a single 7970 or 680 will run out of GPU power before VRAM. Even in Surround/Eyefinity. In my testing it is only worth even considering a 4GB card if you're:

a) going multi-monitor
b) going tri-SLI/tri-crossfire

Otherwise I've found GPU power becomes the limiting factor. Yes, we can talk about modding Skyrim but I don't think anybody seriously buys these cards in their two's and three's to mod Skyrim.

 

[Ollie1132]

Very true, but bang for buck i'd go with the 7970(which i did), the vram may not be an issue now on 2gb models but in a years time who knows, and to get the futureproof privalige with nvidia you got to pay upto £100 more and beyond,

670 4gb £400
680 4gb £500
7970 3gb £320

When all are oc'ed very little in performance, best bang for buck = AMD

It depends. Some people use nvidias cuda cores and the like. And your only paying 80 quid more for 1Gb of vram plus all the things nvidia have to offer. Its a bit of a toss up really. Manufacterers could easily put 6Gb of Vram into their mainstream cards. But they don't for some reason... Probably the fact they want the premiums.

 

[Nickolp1974]

This argument is inherently flawed.

Even moving forward, a single 7970 or 680 will run out of GPU power before VRAM.

Again true but with the higher vram models 3gb and above you have the option to sli/cf and then your back upto ultra settings, what your gonna do with 2gb ones, sli/cf and turn settings down.

Most probably sell and buy the next big thing.

I keep my gfx for about 4 years so i feel i made the right decission for my needs.
Out of interest rusty what 680's are you on

 

[Rusty0611]

Again true but with the higher vram models 3gb and above you have the option to sli/cf and then your back upto ultra settings, what your gonna do with 2gb ones, sli/cf and turn settings down.

Only if you're going three GPU's or more.

As I have said, in BF3 I still fall over with a lack of GPU power @ 5780*1080. So it doesn't matter if you have 2 7970's or 2 680's you're still turning settings down if you want decent FPS.

And the proportion of people running 3 graphics cards is tiny...

I don't care that you purchased a 7970 over a 670 but the point is that if you did only due to the more VRAM on the former then you'll be disappointed as effectively it's going to be un-utilised and as such wasted.

 

[Ollie1132]

Again true but with the higher vram models 3gb and above you have the option to sli/cf and then your back upto ultra settings, what your gonna do with 2gb ones, sli/cf and turn settings down.

Or just don't play super high res with ridiculus enhancements to the game. I always tweak graphics settings... Put maybe ultra turn down whats not important (foilage and other lesser things) and so on...

 

[Nickolp1974]

Only if you're going three GPU's or more.

As I have said, in BF3 I still fall over with a lack of GPU power @ 5780*1080. So it doesn't matter if you have 2 7970's or 2 680's you're still turning settings down if you want decent FPS.

And the proportion of people running 3 graphics cards is tiny...

I don't care that you purchased a 7970 over a 670 but the point is that if you did only due to the more VRAM on the former then you'll be disappointed as effectively it's going to be un-utilised and as such wasted.

Speed limit 70mph, some like fast cars, is it a waste, probably, but its nice to know its there if you need it.
I did not buy my card because of vram, bought it because it goes well and it looks the dogs b........ Imo

 

[Rusty0611]

Worst analogy ever. VRAM != speed.

 

[Nickolp1974]

Worst analogy ever. VRAM != speed.

c'mon its not that bad!! Anyway lots of valid points and this disscusion is and will go on forever, 1000's of pages on net and i'm sure many more to come.


Oh what happens if you do not use AA, vram goes down fps(speed) goes up

This was taken from techpower up

Well, BF3 at 2560x1440 on ultra is definitely >2GB usage. And again, it's not just Vram. In 5 years? All our cards will be dust.

BF3 should not be used to determine how VRAM is required as it will scale with how much is available to it:

In my own Eyefinity / Surround testing I have monitored the following:

At 3620x1920, Ultra settings (no AA):

HD7970 - 2.2-2.4GB
GTX680 - 1.4-1.6GB

At 3620x1920, Ultra settings (2xAA):

HD7970 - 2.4-2.6GB
GTX680 - 1.6-1.8GB

At 3620x1920, Ultra settings (4xAA):

HD7970 - 2.4-2.8GB
GTX680 - 2GB+ (out of memory error).

What we can conclude from this is two things:

1) Yes it is technically possible for BF3 to require more than 2GB of VRAM but the settings that actually require it are well beyond 1080p levels (and are certainly beyond the level that a single card can achieve - 30FPS average is not really playable in BF3).

2) VRAM usage under normal scenarios is not accurate as there is a lot of caching going on.

I completely agree with your second point, there is no point in asking the question whether the current generation of cards will be any good for 60+ FPS average in 5 years time. Regardless of VRAM requirement they will be too slow.

To answer the original question: to attain 60fps constant at maximum settings in every current game (+ oodles of AA) you will need either GTX680 SLI or HD7970 CF minimum, even at 1080p. Now this is just ridiculous overkill for the most part as dropping a couple of pointless settings (Uber sampling in Witcher 2 for example) will allow for nigh on 60fps average with just a single GTX680 or HD7970.

 

[psychodil]

Rusty, how much vram are you using at your Res now?

 

[MichaelM]

I had 670 SLI for 1080 @ 120Hz and it really is not a hugely noticeable difference from a single 670. Some of that is due to never seeing both cards above 90% usage at the same time and I somehow doubt that it was a CPU bottleneck, I think the cards dynamic boost is just taking too many liberties.

 

[Rusty0611]

*snip*

I think that was exactly what I was saying wasn't it?

Rusty, how much vram are you using at your Res now?

Don't know. Will test and let you know in a few mins...

 

[MeMeMeMe]

If you don't upgrade every cycle, and only upgrade when you feel you need to, go balls out and grab a 680 GTX 4GB (or 2GB, depending on your resolution and gaming use). Stay happy with that one for now, as it will destroy pretty much everything out right now.

If you're gaming on triple screen, 7950/7970 is probably the better deal.
I haven't seen actual reviews of 680 4GB at triple screen res's, but i have seen more reviews lately of how the 7970 does better once your getting to triple screen, and its not just due to the size of VRAM.
From techreport:
"The 7970 has a wider memory interface, more bandwidth, and 3GB of RAM versus the 680's 2GB. I'd expect the bandwidth to be more of an advantage than the capacity, really, but either way, these really high resolutions are home turf for the bigger chip with the more robust memory subsystem."

 

[Rusty0611]

Scores on the doors:

64 player Conquest (Ultra settings at 5780*1080 with):

no MSAA - 1550-1600MB of VRAM used

MSAA x2 - 1775-1825 of VRAM used

MSAA x4 - 1950 - 2008MB of VRAM used*

2008 was the maximum recorded and there was no perceivable slowdown while at this level.

Worth mentioning that I turned off Windows Aero theme while testing otherwise 4x MSAA would not have been playable.

As it happens, FPS wasn't too bad at MSAA x4 although far from ideal.

 

[Rusty0611]

Added screenshots and changed VRAM amounts slightly after checking graphs.

 

[Gregster]

We seem to be in "Groundhog Day" with talk of VRAM. Rusty and many others have proved that 2GB is enough and GPU power is hit before VRAM is. Cleeecooo linked to a website saying how 4GB is only usefull for tri sli and this makes perfect sense.

3GB is more of a luxury than a neccesity.

 

[Rusty0611]

Indeed gregster. All this talk of "my card will be useful for longer because of 3GB" is completely ridiculous.

What these people are failing to understand is that unless they realistically change platform to X79 or whatever the next high-end is (if they aren't already) and get 3x of said card then even 2x of the card is going to run out of GPU power first.

This isn't 7970/50 hate - it's just some of the VRAM discussions going on around here are crazy and most of the time factually incorrect!

We all know as well it's far easier to change to a better graphics card in 2 years time than it is to get another two of the same card and run a tri-fire set up .