Decided it's time to change my graphics cards to something newer. I currently use 2x gtx 460 evga, modded with gelids. Having no problems with games. But its defo time to change. So im thinking 350 - 450 budget, what do you guys think? 670 ,680 or 2 cards for sli?
-
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.
Changing cards next month
- Thread starter Leeroy123
- Start date
GTX 670 is the best bang for £ in that list.
As for SLI, are you running multi monitor? in which case the 2GB vRam on the standard 670 / 680 is not really enough and you would need to get the 4GB versions. (2x 2GB is still 2GB in SLI, they don't double up)
Alternatively the 7970 is as fast as the GTX 680, costs less and has 3GB of vRam.
IMO its the better choice card.
As for SLI, are you running multi monitor? in which case the 2GB vRam on the standard 670 / 680 is not really enough and you would need to get the 4GB versions. (2x 2GB is still 2GB in SLI, they don't double up)
Alternatively the 7970 is as fast as the GTX 680, costs less and has 3GB of vRam.
IMO its the better choice card.
I run 1 monitor - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-051-BQ and use 3dvision 2. Only nvidia is an option for me mate.
Wrong regarding VRAM usage. Why do people like you post about VRAM without having tested it or seen results?? It's weird.
Last edited:
Because if your maxing out the memory today (as your quote shows) you may not have enough tomorrow.
Now i don't know about you but if i'm spending £450 on a GPU i don't want to find that its not enough anymore with games a year down the line.
If you only intend to game/use a 1080 monitor a 2GB card is ample and the 670 is without doubt value for money IMHO
You don't understand.
1) I didn't max out the memory
2) The settings where I got close to maxing out the memory I had nowhere near enough GPU power to run those settings (unplayable FPS)
3) You need 3 high end card to be limited at 2GB by VRAM (670/680)
I don't mind that you don't understand how it works but I do mind you giving rubbish advice when you haven't actually researched or tested the GPU/VRAM relationship etc. I'm not having a go it's just irritating to see the same incorrect information given out again and again by people who
a) don't have SLI/crossfire;
b) don't have Surround/Eyefinity (to test the high resolutions) and;
c) clearly haven't read about it.
Last edited:
Whilst you make a good call over protecting your investment but to benefit from a 4GB card you will require 3 or 4 way sli.(6 series cards)
If you want to get into an understanding then its you who really need brush up on whats what.
As i said before 2Gb of vRam is fine at normal res, just a year ago 1GB of vRam was fine. And thats no longer the case is it?
Have a look at this user with the newly release Crysis 2. its using close to 3GB of vRam http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=227936&highlight=2gb+vram
Just one screen @ 2560x1600, and 60+ FPS, but lucky for him he has a 3GB 7970.
Just because its ok today is no measure of it being ok tomorrow, its foolish to think it is, the amount of texture in games is increasing all the time, single screens are becoming bigger with higher resolutions. nothing stays as it is, if it did we would still be fine on 1GB cards for 1080P.
Last edited:
I need to brush up on what's what?
OK mate - remind me who's got 3 screens and has extensively tested and who hasn't?
2GB is fine for 3 screens as well unless you have tri-SLI/trifire in which case more than 2GB is needed to utilise all the GPU power.
You're ignoring the point about GPU power limiting before VRAM limits. You're also failing to comprehend how when more VRAM than is needed is available the application caches some stuff into the VRAM.
I can find a load of examples of basically AMD 7950/7970 users using way more than 2GB of VRAM but in the same scenario's 670/680 owners aren't suffering slow downs.
Your advice was incorrect and should be withdrawn.
OK mate - remind me who's got 3 screens and has extensively tested and who hasn't?
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*
2GB is fine for 3 screens as well unless you have tri-SLI/trifire in which case more than 2GB is needed to utilise all the GPU power.
You're ignoring the point about GPU power limiting before VRAM limits. You're also failing to comprehend how when more VRAM than is needed is available the application caches some stuff into the VRAM.
I can find a load of examples of basically AMD 7950/7970 users using way more than 2GB of VRAM but in the same scenario's 670/680 owners aren't suffering slow downs.
Your advice was incorrect and should be withdrawn.
Last edited:
Are you using one of yesterdays games again to prove your point? what is that BF3?
You keep banging on about whats relevant today, i'm talking about whats relevant tomorrow.
If something is loading data into the vRam its doing it for a reason given its so much faster than the system Ram, it may well load it into the system Ram if there isn't enough vRam saying that makes no difference is short sighted.
You being comfortable with your £450 2GB GPU's is great. And if in a few months you suddenly find its no longer enough, its ok, don't worry, Nvidia will be right be your side with a 4GB GPU, at another cost of £450.
I will give them this, they know there market and they know how use it to make money, i mean why not just stick a bit more there (instead of just enough for today) seem's a cheap, or cynical.... 2GB (And then later) 4GB <- at a premium. these things aren't cheap to start with.
You keep banging on about whats relevant today, i'm talking about whats relevant tomorrow.
If something is loading data into the vRam its doing it for a reason given its so much faster than the system Ram, it may well load it into the system Ram if there isn't enough vRam saying that makes no difference is short sighted.
You being comfortable with your £450 2GB GPU's is great. And if in a few months you suddenly find its no longer enough, its ok, don't worry, Nvidia will be right be your side with a 4GB GPU, at another cost of £450.
I will give them this, they know there market and they know how use it to make money, i mean why not just stick a bit more there (instead of just enough for today) seem's a cheap, or cynical.... 2GB (And then later) 4GB <- at a premium. these things aren't cheap to start with.
Last edited:
Yes it is BF3 but it's a good example as it uses a lot of GPU grunt and VRAM.
You're still completely missing the point I'm afraid.
Regarding the caching: I've already stated that in the same scenario 2GB cards are seeing no slowdown even though people are seeing close to 3 GB usage with 7950/70's.
The point is that this current generation of GPU's do not have enough GPU grunt to push the settings to which you'd run out of VRAM in Surround/Eyefinity. If you actually read my first post you'd probably understand better and stop making yourself look stupid.
So in future games which will require even more GPU grunt this will be even more true. Your point that you need to buy a 4GB card for multi-monitor setup has been proven wrong.*
This has been proven to be the case on these forums numerous times so I'm not sure why you're still insisting you're correct. You haven't tested it or read about it so I don't know why you think you know better.
*unless you go tri-SLI/trifire
You're still completely missing the point I'm afraid.
Regarding the caching: I've already stated that in the same scenario 2GB cards are seeing no slowdown even though people are seeing close to 3 GB usage with 7950/70's.
The point is that this current generation of GPU's do not have enough GPU grunt to push the settings to which you'd run out of VRAM in Surround/Eyefinity. If you actually read my first post you'd probably understand better and stop making yourself look stupid.
So in future games which will require even more GPU grunt this will be even more true. Your point that you need to buy a 4GB card for multi-monitor setup has been proven wrong.*
This has been proven to be the case on these forums numerous times so I'm not sure why you're still insisting you're correct. You haven't tested it or read about it so I don't know why you think you know better.
*unless you go tri-SLI/trifire
Rusty do you not think its possible for a game to have very high texture usage but have playable FPS? You could have very high Res textures, with msaa but lowered settings such as hbao and particle effects to get good FPS.
You are very close to using up your 2gb buffer now, and I'm sure battlefield 4 will have higher Res textures when it comes out, as will crysis 3.
My point is people could have the option to play with reduced smoke/decals to improve performance but still have max/modified texture details, something you probably won't be able to do in the not so distant future.
Also bear in mind the performance of the 7xxx cards doesn't drop off as sharply as the 6xx cards when you increase resolution and apply mass, probably due to superior bandwidth.
You are very close to using up your 2gb buffer now, and I'm sure battlefield 4 will have higher Res textures when it comes out, as will crysis 3.
My point is people could have the option to play with reduced smoke/decals to improve performance but still have max/modified texture details, something you probably won't be able to do in the not so distant future.
Also bear in mind the performance of the 7xxx cards doesn't drop off as sharply as the 6xx cards when you increase resolution and apply mass, probably due to superior bandwidth.
Last edited:
They still perform the same overall @ 5760*1080 depending on the game of course.
The thing is I'm only close to the limit on settings which I cannot use due to not having enough GPU grunt. MSAA uses a huge amount of VRAM and if you remove this then it's comfortable on both the VRAM side of things and GPU power.
You could remove other things to allow MSAA to be run but you'd be looking at dropping settings to low to get playable FPS and to have MSAA on as well at this resolution which kind of defies the point.
The other settings which you can alter don't actually affect your FPS that much. It's the resolution and MSAA which do it.
So I don't think by lowering the odd setting you'd get to the point where you're VRAM capped instead of GPU power capped due to my next point.
I see your point but it's unlikely as realistically if I want to game in Surround I have 500MB of wriggle room with VRAM. I can get higher VRAM usage but there's no point as it slows right down due to a lack of GPU grunt.
This has all been discussed in great depth elsewhere on this forum and I don't think there's any need to detract further from the OP's topic as he has confirmed that he games on a single monitor.
Last edited:
Thanks for the help guys, im defo sticking with my monitor, so i may just get a 2gb 670 then. Or maybe a 680 
ill see how much exactly i have next month and go from there. Have been looking at this though http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-190-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2294
ill see how much exactly i have next month and go from there. Have been looking at this though http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-190-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2294Thanks for the help guys, im defo sticking with my monitor, so i may just get a 2gb 670 then. Or maybe a 680
If I were you I'd get a Gigabyte Windforce 670 or 7970. Both will serve you proud. If it comes down to it I would go for the 7970 as it will overclock to 680 matching performance.
Just ignore all the VRAM nonsense above. A few people like to talk about it without having ever tested it
(not you psychodil I know you were being speculative).
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 May 2012
- Posts
- 5,831
- Location
- Louth, lincs
Have any tests been done reguarding bandwidth? Does it make a differance??
It's implicit within the benchmarks.
So ive always stayed away from AMD/ATI because of the stories with the driver issues. If i was to change over, which 7970 should i get mate? and is this gonna goto the top of the list http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-301-SP&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=938
Last edited: