I'm buying 2 x GTX670...2gb or 4gb?

[Tonebag]

I am going to buy 2 GTX 670 cards very soon and SLi'ing them. I have already got full cover waterblocks so obviously they will be watercooled.
I'm wondering if it's worth spending the extra cash on 4gb cards or just go with the 2gb version instead.
They will be strictly used for gaming purpose's, I may in the future set up a multi-screen system but that decision isnt a final one so may end up sticking with single screen set up.
The price difference between the 2 is the best part of £100 so buying 2 cards would increase my bugdet by £200 for the 4gb cards and I dont wont to do that if its not going to make a difference to my gaming?

 

[Tonester0011]

2GB.
Running out of VRAM only really becomes an issue when running 3 or more cards, as two cards dont have enough grunt to push the settings required to push you over your VRAM limit.

Edit: Exception being Skyrim heavily modded, that's a lot of mods btw

 

[Doomedspeed]

I agree with above..

Just wondering, is there any reason you've gone for this over 7950 Xfire? They have 3GB of VRAM, not too far off the pace either. And cheaper..

 

[ALXAndy]

IMO if you are spending that much money you should get 4gb cards.

Sure 2gb is enough now. How are you going to feel in a year's time when a game comes out and renders them paper weights?

If it was one card I would say sure, go 2gb. But a pair is going to set you back a huge slab of cash and one game could render them useless..

And before any one wants to argue over it I say this as an ex GTX 295 quad SLI owner who watched £800 worth of cards become paperweights within two years due to lacking vram.

 

[Tonebag]

Thanks for replies and if it's not going to make that much difference btween 2gb or 4gb cards then it makes sense to have 2 x GTX670 2gb cards..
Also I've always been an Nvidia card user. I have looked at AMD cards but for some reason just found myself going with Nvidia, I can honestly say there is not particular reason behind my decision :/
Btw, I'm currently running GTX 580's in SLi, am I reading this right when it comes to the spec between these cards...the 670 and 680 cards draw less power from your PSU than a 580 card?

 

[Doomedspeed]

Thanks for replies and if it's not going to make that much difference btween 2gb or 4gb cards then it makes sense to have 2 x GTX670 2gb cards..
Also I've always been an Nvidia card user. I have looked at AMD cards but for some reason just found myself going with Nvidia, I can honestly say there is not particular reason behind my decision :/

Fair point, not trying to change you mind, just presenting the option.
Im the same.. Was all setup to buy a 7850 (to replace my GTX 460) but ended up getting a 570 2.5GB secondhand instead..

Btw, I'm currently running GTX 580's in SLi, am I reading this right when it comes to the spec between these cards...the 670 and 680 cards draw less power from your PSU than a 580 card?

That's true..Newer GPU's are a lot more energy efficient,

Are you 580's struggling atall or is this just an itch?

 

[Tonebag]

This is more of an itch really, My 580's have not had any slowing down issues but I cap my games at 60fps as I use my 1080p 60hz tv as my monitor so wont gain any visual enhancment by unlimited fps. I have them watercooled as well and the temps are excellent.

I played through Far Cry 3 with ultra settings and the cards did not go over 51c and there were just a couple of occasions when the fps dropped to 40-45 but 98% of the time stayed solid at 60fps (now I dont know if Far Cry 3 is as graphically intensive as some other games but it's pushed my cards the hardest so far)

@ALXAndy....you have a good point and again I'm thinking about it...

 

[illuz]

This is more of an itch really, My 580's have not had any slowing down issues but I cap my games at 60fps as I use my 1080p 60hz tv as my monitor so wont gain any visual enhancment by unlimited fps. I have them watercooled as well and the temps are excellent.

I played through Far Cry 3 with ultra settings and the cards did not go over 51c and there were just a couple of occasions when the fps dropped to 40-45 but 98% of the time stayed solid at 60fps (now I dont know if Far Cry 3 is as graphically intensive as some other games but it's pushed my cards the hardest so far)

@ALXandy....you have a good point and again I'm thinking about it...

Why are you wasting money?

 

[youdsy]

i'd personally buy one 4gb 670. 2nd hand if you can. then in future pick up another one. say around crimbo.

 

[youdsy]

This is more of an itch really, My 580's have not had any slowing down issues but I cap my games at 60fps as I use my 1080p 60hz tv as my monitor so wont gain any visual enhancment by unlimited fps. I have them watercooled as well and the temps are excellent.

I played through Far Cry 3 with ultra settings and the cards did not go over 51c and there were just a couple of occasions when the fps dropped to 40-45 but 98% of the time stayed solid at 60fps (now I dont know if Far Cry 3 is as graphically intensive as some other games but it's pushed my cards the hardest so far)

@ALXandy....you have a good point and again I'm thinking about it...

2 580's drop down to 40-50 fps in Far Cry 3?

joke of a game.

 

[ninjah]

I am going to buy 2 GTX 670 cards very soon and SLi'ing them. I have already got full cover waterblocks so obviously they will be watercooled.
I'm wondering if it's worth spending the extra cash on 4gb cards or just go with the 2gb version instead.
They will be strictly used for gaming purpose's, I may in the future set up a multi-screen system but that decision isnt a final one so may end up sticking with single screen set up.
The price difference between the 2 is the best part of £100 so buying 2 cards would increase my bugdet by £200 for the 4gb cards and I dont wont to do that if its not going to make a difference to my gaming?

I'm running Gtx670 in sli with 2Gig of VRAM it's more than enough on single screen at 2550x1440. In battlefield 3 graphic setting on max it used 1.6Gig.
The only time you going to used more than 2G VRAM is Triple screen.

 

[Tonester0011]

I'm running Gtx670 in sli with 2Gig of VRAM it's more than enough on single screen at 2550x1440. In battlefield 3 graphic setting on max it used 1.6Gig.
The only time you going to used more than 2G VRAM is Triple screen.

Gregster and Rusty will beg to differ....
Let me find Rusty's graph he made, i'll edit it in.

Edit:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18444958

 

[Rusty0611]

Gregster and Rusty will beg to differ....
Let me find Rusty's graph he made, i'll edit it in.

Edit:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18444958

http://imageshack.us/a/img407/1948/vram.png[img][/QUOTE]

+1

Where I was close to 2GB the FPS was so poor anyway (due to other limiting factors) that it was a moot point anyway that I was close to 2GB. No-one would play those games as those settings and when you reduce certain settings the VRAM requirement drops quite considerably (as illustrated in Metro, Sleeping Dogs and BF3).

That was with two GPUs as well so you do really need 3 GPUs to make the most of the extra 2GB. That said for 2560*1440 it's less clear. As the strain on the GPU is less than triple 1080 resolution you could in theory become VRAM limited as opposed to FPS limited with 2GB cards...

 

[Gregster]

I am inclined to tell the OP to buy 4GB cards if he intends to go triple screen or run lots and lots of mods on Skyrim.

I have found 1 game that can use more than my 2GB available and that is Far Cry 3. The thing that people in the know will agree with me on, is the frame rate I was at prior to breaking the 2GB limit.

I set max settings in Far Cry 3 @ 5760*1080 and pushed MSAA to 8*. This used ~2150MB and was not even a slideshow, it was stuck on a pic for almost a minute before moving to the next frame. I dropped settings to *6 MSAA and this was under my 2GB (can't remember off the top of my head), the only problem with this was the frame rate. I was getting anywhere between 15 and 30 fps...Totaly unplayable IMO. Dropping MSAA to *2 gave me around 35 - 45 fps and still unplayable but some people are happy with that (not me sadly).

Now the reason I say go for the 4GB cards,is if the OP intends to go triple screen and purely because he will have the option of buying a 3rd card for tri SLI and having the grunt to maybe utilise the extra VRAM with enough fps to make a game playable.

With owning 2*2GB cards, and a board capable of running 3*680's, it is pointless me buying another 2GB 680 purely because the fps I get with settings turned down are more than acceptable but If I have 3*680 4GB, I could maybe leave settings on full detail and have acceptable frame rates (so long as Tri SLI is supported).

Hope that makes sense.

 

[gbgt2]

2 580's drop down to 40-50 fps in Far Cry 3?

joke of a game.

Worse than that for me with 8x MSAA, I had to turn it down because it just seemed to kill the performance. That and modded Skyrim have made me consider upgrading too but I'm waiting for the 770/780 before I do. My cards are 1.5GB which is the problem with Skyrim I think, I'm definitely buying > 4GB cards next time.

 

[shahpor]

Apologies for the slight hijack, but if you were gaming at 2560x1600 (like I am), would you recommend 2gb or 4gb cards? (buying one now and one at a later date).

Thanks.

 

[Rusty0611]

Depends on the difference in price. 2 4GB 670s can be had for not much more than 2GB versions.

At 2560 resolutions and two GPUs there's a chance in th future you could be VRAM limited as opposed to GPU grunt limited.

VRAM limited meaning: running out of VRAM and if you had an infinite amount of VRAM the settings you're using produce otherwise acceptable performance.

At triple screen resolution the strain on the GPU is greater so even with 2 GPUs you're fine on the VRAM front as you're reducing settings anyway to achieve good FPS.

 

[Addicted]

Get 4gb, with the amount you're spending you will be looking at keeping them for a while, and a few games are already at 2gb!

 

[Tonebag]

Thanks everyone for this small debate and it's been an interesting read.

It's pretty obvious that more sway towards getting 4gb cards.

Although my needs at the moment are that 2gb cards will suffice, it would be sensible to buy the 1* 4gb card now and get the other soon after.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm only using single screen atm but going tri screen is an option I would definitely like have in the near future and if 4gb cards will make things run smoother then it's a no brainer to me.

There is always the option to overclock the cards too but I would only do that if it were necessary.

Once again thanks for the replies and it's been very informative

 

[skyjawa]

I have an AMD card but I see it getting very close to 2gb in use, luckily they are 3gb cards. I'd go with the 4gb to be future proof as can't be long until they tip over 2gb more than the rare occasions shown in the graph above.