If it was your money, how would you spend it in this scenario?

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 10:56

2 x GTX 670's retail vs an OEM GTX 690?

The GTX 690 comes as just the card and a box, no accessories and with a 12 month warranty from an established business, with receipts for proof of purchase and warranty purposes. The GTX 690 i can have for £660.

The GTX 670's i would have to purchase from OCUK or any other retail i choose.

Whichever way i go, they would be water-cooled.

I want to be future proofed for as long as that is possible, appreciation is given to changing industry and technology.

So,what is the better option for the money?

Thank you

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2013 at 10:58

670s. Same performance not the same price.

davido_labido · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:00

Not going on specs or anything but...

670's just because 2 cards look nice water cooled, and if one dies you could use the other if your at a lan...

darkwildchild79 · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:02

ALXAndy said:
670s. Same performance not the same price.

I agree, personal the 690 looks good but if you have one core fail, you would out of luck since you cant replace, and if you had that on a 670 easy repairable

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:04

Which 670's are worth considering then, taking into account the fan cooler/heatsink will be coming off and be replaced with water blocks?

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:06

If you can get water blocks for the MSI power editions I would rock those.

Other than that just get stock ones.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:17

ALXAndy said:
If you can get water blocks for the MSI power editions I would rock those.

Other than that just get stock ones.

Cheers Andy, I will have a butchers at whats out there.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:24

darkwildchild79 said:
I agree, personal the 690 looks good but if you have one core fail, you would out of luck since you cant replace, and if you had that on a 670 easy repairable

thanks for that, failure of one core and the inability to use the card didn't even occur to me. Doh.

Dom86 · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:37

Yeah i would have a look at the EVGA ftw because i'm led to believe that even if you water cool them the warranty isn't void unlike some other brands.

kedge · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:47

Abz Hussain said:
2 x GTX 670's retail vs an OEM GTX 690?

The GTX 690 comes as just the card and a box, no accessories and with a 12 month warranty from an established business, with receipts for proof of purchase and warranty purposes. The GTX 690 i can have for £660.

The GTX 670's i would have to purchase from OCUK or any other retail i choose.

The GTX is tempting but i would prefer to deal with Overclockers UK they may have a better deal with long term warranty depending on manufacture chosen say something like EVGA, GTX 670's are nice though, as long as you deal with a reputable company and know exactly what is what you should be ok.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:50

ok just one other question - 2GB vs 4GB?

Rusty0611 · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:52

2GB unless you're going triple screen and tri-SLI.

Exception would be 2560*1440/1660 where two GPUs will probably see the benefit of 4GB over 2GB. No point for one GPU though.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:54

Remember though that the 670 FTW is basically a 680 so you will need different blocks.

Good idea though IMO as they are full sized cards without the stupid power socket placement.

Oh and FWIW I would go 4gb. You'll end up spending 690 money but they will last you for years. 2GB is just about safe right now..

And as I've mentioned before numerous times this comes from some one who watched his dual 295s become redundant paper weights over night.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 11:56

Rusty0611 said:
2GB unless you're going triple screen and tri-SLI.

Exception would be 2560*1440/1660 where two GPUs will probably see the benefit of 4GB over 2GB. No point for one GPU though.

I have a dell u3011 which is my main screen. So that would be 2560x1600. Also have a second dell 24 inch which i may use as an accessory screen.
So looks like 4Gb would fit my needs and allow me to triple screen?

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2013 at 12:03

Abz Hussain said:
I have a dell u3011 which is my main screen. So that would be 2560x1600. Also have a second dell 24 inch which i may use as an accessory screen.
So looks like 4Gb would fit my needs and allow me to triple screen?

Yes and yes.

Right now you have nothing to worry about. However, all it takes is one game and multiple companies to move over to the engine it uses and you could wind up in trouble.

It was so sad to see my 295s leave me as each was as powerful as a GTX 480. Sadly though Frostbite II (the engine used by BF3) used well over the 896mb available to each GPU.

I tried turning everything off but it was still chewing through over 1gb vram and causing the game to stutter really badly.

I know they're £80 or so more than the 2gb model but all it could take is one game and they could end up completely useless.. What people are not taking into account right now is that the next gen consoles are to use DDR3 with some sort of APU arrangement..

Have a look around you at how cheap DDR3 is, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the new Xbox packed at least 4gb of memory that would be used by the GPU.

Honestly man if you are dumping that sort of money go 4gb.

The EVGA FTW is the best suggestion yet IMO as they look like 680s and go like 680s.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 13:18

Ok then, the other option i have is to stick with my Dell U3011 for productivity and 2D gaming @ minimum 1920 x 1200 resolution but ideally 2560x1600 and then for 3d gaming i have the option of going to a large screen projector. Max resolution for these 3d projectors is 1080p.
So 1 card now, 4gb evga ftw gtx 670, and one later should i go triple screen. does that sound reasonable?

edit: just to confirm as well, if i WCool the FTW 670 i will need a 680 block?

Rusty0611 · 31 Jan 2013 at 13:43

You can't really do triple screen on different resolutions. Well you can but requires work arounds and not the greatest thing in the world.

There's no point getting a 4GB card unless you're definitely going multi GPU. 1 GPU won't have the grunt to drive the settings which would cause you to exceed 2GB of VRAM at that resolution anyway.

2 GPUs at 2560*1600 then yes, I would get a 4GB card.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 13:57

Rusty0611 said:
You can't really do triple screen on different resolutions. Well you can but requires work arounds and not the greatest thing in the world.

There's no point getting a 4GB card unless you're definitely going multi GPU. 1 GPU won't have the grunt to drive the settings which would cause you to exceed 2GB of VRAM at that resolution anyway.

2 GPUs at 2560*1600 then yes, I would get a 4GB card.

cheers Rusty. So for single monitor gaming at 2560x1600 i should go for a 2GB card? 4GB is if i decide to use three screens?

Rusty0611 · 31 Jan 2013 at 13:57

Abz Hussain said:
cheers Rusty. So for single monitor gaming at 2560x1600 i should go for a 2GB card? 4GB is if i decide to use three screens?

No, 2GB on 2560*1600 if you're only getting one graphics card. 4GB is you're getting two graphics cards.

Abz Hussain · 31 Jan 2013 at 14:09

Rusty0611 said:
No, 2GB on 2560*1600 if you're only getting one graphics card. 4GB is you're getting two graphics cards.

Ok, so my question then is will 2GB of VRAM be borderline, enough, or more than enough to game on a single monitor at 2560x1600?
Will it also be enough to game on single screen 3D @ 1080p?
More than likely i will not be triple screening but go instead for a big projector screen 3D route.

i appreciate your help btw

edit: i should let you know that it will mostly be racing type and sports games that i play, so thats Dirt, F1, NFS, FIFA, NFL and the likes. Maybe a shooter but not really my thing.