To SLI or not to SLI?

MrAnthony · 7 Oct 2012 at 20:49

Hi people.

Another simple question before I even consider spending in excess of £500.

Which would perform better, a single GTX 680 4GB card, or two GTX 660Ti's at 2GB in SLI?

In case it's of any relevance, I'm looking at the Gainward Phantom cards.

Thanks,

- Anthony.

Crezzlin · 7 Oct 2012 at 20:52

I'd go with the 680..

Tonester0011 · 7 Oct 2012 at 20:55

Two 660Ti's outperform a single 680 all day.

I'd still personally opt for the single, faster card (however save £70 and get the 2GB model)

Defy Belief · 7 Oct 2012 at 21:00

I'd personally also always opt for a single card.

But if you want the highest fps/power you can achieve then SLI is your best bet but you may encounter slight problems but you may not.

I'd recommend a 670 also as it's so close to a 680 it's not worth the extra money.

andybird123 · 7 Oct 2012 at 21:33

go for a 670 and then SLI later if you need to, as mentioned above it's near as dammit the same when both are overclocked and the 100 odd saving can be put aside for a later upgrade if you want

panyan · 7 Oct 2012 at 21:33

Tonester0011 said:
Two 660Ti's outperform a single 680 all day.

Although true, i'd still go for the 680 so that in the future i could sli it

Rusty0611 · 7 Oct 2012 at 23:35

Why 4GB 680?

Kaapstad · 7 Oct 2012 at 23:42

You may get higher max fps with 660 sli but in some situations you will also get lower minimum fps. SLI is only as good as its weakest link.

Go for the GTX 670 and if needed SLI later.

SLI works best with powerful cards which to some extent defeats the need to SLI.

chipachap · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:06

Kaapstad said:
You may get higher max fps with 660 sli but in some situations you will also get lower minimum fps. SLI is only as good as its weakest link.

Go for the GTX 670 and if needed SLI later.

SLI works best with powerful cards which to some extent defeats the need to SLI.

What do you mean by works best? It works the same with any card, if anything you get better scaling with lower performance cards.

Kaapstad · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:15

chipachap said:
What do you mean by works best? It works the same with any card, if anything you get better scaling with lower performance cards.

Sometimes with sli the minimum FPS can be the same as a single card. So if you are using say gtx 660 sli compared to a single gtx 680, you may get better average/maximum fps with the gtx 660s but you may also get lower minimums where sli lets you down.

*Rich* · 8 Oct 2012 at 18:37

The phantom gpu's which i have are very quiet too if that's a deciding factor in your build.

MrAnthony · 8 Oct 2012 at 20:32

Rusty0611 said:
Why 4GB 680?

Based on the usual saying of more is better, I selected the 4GB version.

*Rich* said:
The phantom gpu's which i have are very quiet too if that's a deciding factor in your build.

Thought so! Besides, they keep fairly cool, and look fairly cool too.

If the 670 works just as well but is about £200, makes a lot of sense to pick the 670 then!

Cheers,

- Anthony.

Rusty0611 · 8 Oct 2012 at 22:26

MrAnthony said:
Based on the usual saying of more is better, I selected the 4GB version.

No benefit for single screen gaming or if you're not going tri-SLI (3 GPU's).

whyscotty · 8 Oct 2012 at 22:29

Rusty0611 said:
No benefit for single screen gaming or if you're not going tri-SLI (3 GPU's).

+1

Those are wise words

MrAnthony · 8 Oct 2012 at 22:58

Rusty0611 said:
No benefit for single screen gaming or if you're not going tri-SLI (3 GPU's).

whyscotty said:
+1

Those are wise words

Then I shall take them on board. Thanks for the information.

So what's the point in making a 4GB card full stop? To attract idiots like me, no doubt. :rolleyes:

no_1_dave · 8 Oct 2012 at 23:30

MrAnthony said:
Then I shall take them on board. Thanks for the information.

So what's the point in making a 4GB card full stop? To attract idiots like me, no doubt.

Some people game on more then 1 monitor.

BluSky · 8 Oct 2012 at 23:35

More VRAM is useful at higher resolutions. It can be of benefit in some games for 2560x1600/1440 but especially shines when playing on triple monitor setups.

Kaapstad · 8 Oct 2012 at 23:38

MrAnthony said:
Then I shall take them on board. Thanks for the information.

So what's the point in making a 4GB card full stop? To attract idiots like me, no doubt.

4gb for a single screen = less performance not more.

Denser memory is harder to oc.

Gregster · 8 Oct 2012 at 23:50

MrAnthony said:
Then I shall take them on board. Thanks for the information.

So what's the point in making a 4GB card full stop? To attract idiots like me, no doubt.

No no, not at all. 4GB cards become very effective when put to use in Tri-SLI. I currently run 2*2GB cards in SLI and can play every game at 5760*1080 (3 screens) no problems however....If I turn the settings up to ultra on BF3 for example, the frame returns are low (under 30 at times) because even with 2 680's running, the resoloution is a big demand on 2 680's but if I had 3 680's, it would be able to cope with BF3 on ultra easily and the 4GB cards will allow for future proofing more so at that resoloution. More and more people are getting into multi monitor gaming (I love it) and some people would like to go higher resoloution than what I have (3*2560*1440(7680*1440)) and the 4GB of VRAM is essential in some games.

I hope that makes sense.

Defy Belief · 8 Oct 2012 at 23:53

It is also a oh that has more memory so it'll be better factor though, if you'd have not came on the forum you'd have thought you'd be getting a great boost but you wouldn't.

Good of you to take it on board, the amount of people that still buy the 4gb as a standalone card for 1080p because it'll 'last longer' is stupid.

There is a market for the 4gb cards, guarantee a lot of the people that own them don't make a use of it.

I still remember when I bought my 4890 VAPOR-X 2GB, when everyone was saying 2gb was overkill.

(which it was at the time, but I bought it simply because it had 2gb, albeit second hand so wasn't much difference)