STILL THE DADDY!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter NathWraith
- Start date
Nah not my point, I would think that if you spend 6 grand on a system the least you could get is a free copy of windows 8 by the folks at OCUK.
For the record running Windows 7 Pro 64bit here now and for a long time.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 170
- Location
- Keynsham, Bristol
6 grand on a system i'd be wanting a much bigger ssd and a pair of 690's
Why in gods name would you want a pair of GTX690s over four fully fledged GTX680s?
Heh. Another VRam comment. Utter rubbish.
I can push beyond 2GB in some games on my system at 1440p why is it rubbish ?
Agree with PhillyDee on the quality sound card and the fact that your pushing it with 2 x samsung ssd drives and pictures showing vertex drives hmmmmm, get the hair out of your eyes Mr Naith and either update the pic or change the build info .... on something this price any mistake even in the advertising is unforgiveable 
You are making assumptions, firstly just because a title fills the VRam buffer doesn't mean it needs it to maintain performance. It also doesn't mean more VRam = better performance. Half the time it is just used as short term storage and it is very title dependant.
I've had both GTX680 2GB and GTX680 4GBs @ 1600p. Performance was neigh on the same in all titles I played. You'll see 1-2 FPS increase if that in certain titles. Frankly the only reason to pay the premium on 4GB cards is if you run very large textures at extremely high resolutions with multiple monitors.
The whole 4GB VRam is needed for anything above 1080p is getting old and it isn't based off the facts.
I'm sorry but all these anything above 1080p and this system will fall over due to the lack of VRam comments are just that, rubbish.
As have I and I've seen no stuttering based off a lack of VRam. The 4GB cards didn't feel smoother nor did the benchmarks or FPS records indicate anything more than a 1-2FPS difference in the average FPS. Infact the only title where I noticed a difference was Skyrim modded with the custom high resolution 4K textures.
The stutter is a lot less to do with the amount of VRam and a lot more to do with the limitations of these current generations of cards. Something I'm sure that will be resolved in the refresh. It should also be noted the Vsync has been well documented to cause stutter and because of the smoothing effect on the average FPS it is very often enabled.
This isn't really the place for this discussion, but I really do wish people would stop jumping on the not enough VRam wagon when in 90% of cases it isn't a problem. Those 10% come down to high resolutions and large textures where the purchase of these 4GB cards is justified. That point as far as I'm concerned is when you add additional displays and the pixel count exceeds 5 million.
Last edited:
You don't understand the relationship between VRAM and having the horsepower behind it to drive the settings which could (and will) exceed 2GB. Even BF3 without Windows Aero disabled runs out of VRAM at 5760*1080 in 64 player multiplayer. Far Cry 3 and MOHWF are another as well as Sleeping Dogs with extreme AA.
So I'm afraid, as others have pointed out: you're just wrong. What you are correct about is that a single 4GB card won't really be of much benefit over a single 2GB card. That is because the raw GPU grunt of a single 680 is almost perfectly matched to 2GB of VRAM. Low FPS from a lack of GPU grunt is the issue rather than the VRAM amount.
Where having 4 GPUs becomes an issue is where if you're running a high resolution and you don't have enough VRAM like 5760*1080 then you'll have to drop settings to reduce the amount of VRAM used which completely renders useless at least 1 of your GPUs as utilisation will drop as well across the board as a result.
So it's not jumping on the bandwagon it's about understanding and having tested exact scenarios where this is an issue. There's plenty of other in the GPU forums who will concur. Indeed you've got people above you telling you you're wrong so stop arguing about it.
Let us not argue! Let us instead bask in the radiant glow of the big shiny computermabob!
It isn't an argument, it is a heated discussion!
This isn't the place for it though, wouldn't happily pick it up in another thread.
You are both wrong, quite clearly 2GB + 2GB + 2GB + 2GB = 8GB and 8GB will be plenty for even a 10,000,000,000" screen.
Honestly. The size of the screen is what stresses the card not the resolution, big pixels are far more difficult to render because it has to stretch the picture more, and that takes effort, and some graphics cards are lazy.
The four cards are necessary to hold each corner of the picture.
Personally I think that the GTX680 is a joke.
An 8400GS would be far more suited to a system of this caliber.
8400 is more than 12x larger than 680 as a number, so it would find it far easier to hold more than one corner of such a massive picture.
Its just basic computing guys.
Honestly. The size of the screen is what stresses the card not the resolution, big pixels are far more difficult to render because it has to stretch the picture more, and that takes effort, and some graphics cards are lazy.
The four cards are necessary to hold each corner of the picture.
Personally I think that the GTX680 is a joke.
An 8400GS would be far more suited to a system of this caliber.
8400 is more than 12x larger than 680 as a number, so it would find it far easier to hold more than one corner of such a massive picture.
Its just basic computing guys.
Last edited:
