• 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.

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

Abz Hussain said:
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.
Click to expand...

It will be borderline yes but with "only" one GPU you're going to be needing to turn graphical settings down a touch to achieve playable FPS. By doing so - and also sacrificing MSAA where applicable - you will reduce the amount of VRAM used well away from 2GB.

With two graphics cards you've got more raw muscle to push higher framerates so therefore you can apply more settings. At 2560*1600 with 2GB you are likely to exceed 2GB if you apply max settings in certain games and with two GPUs you will have the GPU muscle to run these frame rates hence the recommendation for a 4GB card if you're going the multi GPU route.

For a single 1080p screen a single 2GB card will be fine. 3D doesn't use more VRAM.

Finding specific info on your own situation is difficult as not many people use 2560*1600 screens and those that do may play different games so it's a case of trial and error really but the advice above holds firm as a general rule of thumb. If you situation ends up different you always have the 7 day return period to return goods. :)
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
It will be borderline yes but with "only" one GPU you're going to be needing to turn graphical settings down a touch to achieve playable FPS. By doing so - and also sacrificing MSAA where applicable - you will reduce the amount of VRAM used well away from 2GB.

With two graphics cards you've got more raw muscle to push higher framerates so therefore you can apply more settings. At 2560*1600 with 2GB you are likely to exceed 2GB if you apply max settings in certain games and with two GPUs you will have the GPU muscle to run these frame rates hence the recommendation for a 4GB card if you're going the multi GPU route.

For a single 1080p screen a single 2GB card will be fine. 3D doesn't use more VRAM.
Click to expand...

That now, is crystal. Cheers fella.
 
You didn't mention AMD, but have you considered a 7970 solution?

They have a 384-bit memory bus (vs. nVidia's 256-bit bus), which is reallhy worthwhile when looking at higher resolution gaming...
 
Well, things you would to consider (in terms of cost) is that with two cards, you would need two waterblocks...and then also if your loop can handle two GTX670, or would it be easier on the loop if it was only a single GTX690.

Also, according to bit-tech (who is well-known for their hate toward pretty much everything multi-GPU due to micro-shuttering) claims that they can't find any micro-shutter taking place with the GTX690, so there's a speculation that the GTX690 has something done on hardware level (possibly the onboard SLI chip) for reducing micro-shutter. But of course you could take this as a pinch of salt, and just considering purely the points of waterblock and loop.
 
Last edited:
I would go for the 690. Easier to do a water cooling loop (and cheaper). Like Marine says, the 690 has micro stutter sorted at hardware level, so should be smoother. Maybe Kaapstad will comment on that. With that in mind though, if you wanted to go triple screen, I would look to the 4GB 670's. You will need 3 of them to get the benefit of the extra VRAM though and to have enough grunt to push the pixels around at max details.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. Having had the day to consider more my requirments its looking more likely that i will be single monitor gaming albeit at higher resolutions - 1440/1600.
I would like to keep costs down and thats why i originaly opened the thread as i thought that a 690 for £660 was pretty good. It is however an oem card, no retail stuff. I was also aware that two gtx 670's, plus waterblocks would possibly cost more than £660. A block for the 690 would cost me another £105. Just as well they use less power lol.

My current card is a 1.5 gb gtx 580.
 
With having a 580, why not hold off to see the full specs of Titan? The 580 is still capable and will be for a month at least :p

Due for release at the end of February and with your budget, it could be a very viable choice.
 
Abz Hussain said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you want to watercool them you need to take a look for 680 Ref. blocks
 
gregster said:
I would go for the 690. Easier to do a water cooling loop (and cheaper). Like Marine says, the 690 has micro stutter sorted at hardware level, so should be smoother. Maybe Kaapstad will comment on that. With that in mind though, if you wanted to go triple screen, I would look to the 4GB 670's. You will need 3 of them to get the benefit of the extra VRAM though and to have enough grunt to push the pixels around at max details.
Click to expand...

Providing you don't need more than 2gb of vram to run something like skyrim with mods up to 1600p the GTX 690 is fine. For quality as a 2 gpu solution it is also the best option (no microstutter) When it comes to performance 2 x HD 7950s are as quick at 1600p and a lot better value for money. What gregster says above is spot on, also whats important is that with the 2gb vram limit for multi monitor gaming the GTX 690 is at best average and in 12 to 18 months time will not cut it at all.

gregster said:
With having a 580, why not hold off to see the full specs of Titan? The 580 is still capable and will be for a month at least :p

Due for release at the end of February and with your budget, it could be a very viable choice.
Click to expand...

As a GTX 690 owner I am also waiting for the Titan to launch as 2 Titans in sli will be a massive up grade from a GTX 690. The biggest weakness of a GTX 690 is the 256bit memory bus on a GTX 680 this is a pain on 2 GTX 690s its a major headache - this will be rectified with the launch of the Titan which comes with a bigger vram/memory bus.
 
Kaapstad said:
Providing you don't need more than 2gb of vram to run something like skyrim with mods up to 1600p the GTX 690 is fine. For quality as a 2 gpu solution it is also the best option (no microstutter) When it comes to performance 2 x HD 7950s are as quick at 1600p and a lot better value for money. What gregster says above is spot on, also whats important is that with the 2gb vram limit for multi monitor gaming the GTX 690 is at best average and in 12 to 18 months time will not cut it at all.



As a GTX 690 owner I am also waiting for the Titan to launch as 2 Titans in sli will be a massive up grade from a GTX 690. The biggest weakness of a GTX 690 is the 256bit memory bus on a GTX 680 this is a pain on 2 GTX 690s its a major headache - this will be rectified with the launch of the Titan which comes with a bigger vram/memory bus.
Click to expand...

And as an SLI owner at 5760*1080, I find the memory bus a pain. Nvidia have a great cards but I didn't understand the reasoning behind the small bus. I think regardless of the specs of the Titan, I will be getting a couple (unless they do perform poorly). 384bit memory bus will be a huge boost to me with 3 3D monitors and 2 Titans should make Crysis 3 obtain frams like it was playing CS.
 
Thank you kaapstad and gregster.
My only dilemma now is 3D. Im undecided as to which route i want to go. Large screen projector or multi monitor. Each has its pro and cons. I have been loaned a 3d projector and the 3d is just awsome. Not really experienced it with a multimonitor setup. Im also guessing that you would need minimum two gpu's to get the image on 3 or 5 monitors. The cost easily adds up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom