• 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.

Can 2gb 680 sli with 4gb 680 ?

rossiboy001 said:
Cheers , so what yr concluding , is the only market for a higher than 2GB card would be with a 3 way setup at current top range 680 or prob 7970 cards.
Click to expand...

Correct. 2 GPU's don't have enough power to push the settings which cause them to get close to the VRAM limit at 2GB.

rossiboy001 said:
Because , TBH im coming around to your conclusions , But another View is could this be somehow software/driver related which will mature (eventually)
Click to expand...

No it's definitely hardware related.

rossiboy001 said:
Something else must be going on , cause it does not make full sense that one GPU can handle a standard 2GB of card ram , yet two GPU"S together cant manage the ram fully of one card of 2GB , let alone more , putting aside the full 4 GB argument .
Click to expand...

No. One (or two) GPU's can handle 4GB of VRAM but what they can't do is utilise it. They can only utilise over 2GB if you have 3 GPU's as then the GPU's combined have enough muscle to move the settings which will eventually use more than 2GB of VRAM at acceptable framerates.

rossiboy001 said:
What this says in a way is your get better graphics with one card , but better FPS with two , if that makes sense .

Or another way to interperete , For example ,One card will give you say 30FPS , two cards will give you 58FPS , but even if you were to drop to 30FPS , you couldnt still turn up the candy .
Therefore for many if you get playable framerates , there is no benefit at all going sli or crossfire .
Click to expand...

Sorry this doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't sound close to correct though mate :).
 
Gregster , I agree , its giving me a headach to , but when it comes to spending money its always a headach lol .

Rusty , Thanks yeah I wernt meaning you , its a general observation , yourS n Rustys information is the only experienced knowlege I can source .

My Last comment , trying to articulate the trade off , perhaps takes a bit of being on the same wavelength .
I think im essentialy saying 680 SLI x 2 will only give you higher FPS , not better eyecandy or both .
If you can already get a decent frame rate with one , having a tremendous framerate with two is in the real world not much noticable and not worth £400-500 .

SLI x 3 However is a different story .
 
Last edited:
This is the best way I can see to describe it. The below data isn't representative of any game but at different resoloutions, this is how it will go.

1 680 @ 1920 * 1080 full eye candy will = 80fps VRAM = 1500MB
1 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy will = 25fps VRAM = 1800MB
2 680 @ 1920 * 1080 full eye candy will = 175 fps VRAM = 1500MB
2 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy will = 47 fps VRAM = 1800MB
3 680 @ 1920 * 1080 full eye candy will = 220 fps VRAM = 1500MB
3 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy will = 60 fps VRAM = 1800MB

So for me the line that reads "1 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy will = 25fps VRAM = 1800MB" isn't an acceptable frame rate, so I would turn setings down. I would then expect something in the region of:

1 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy (No MSAA) will = 45fps VRAM = 1600MB
or
1 680 @ 5760 * 1080 full eye candy (No MSAA & no HBAO) will = 60fps VRAM = 1400MB

I hope that makes sense. I have only recently got my setup (last week) and did some extensive testing. I tried to break the VRAM limit with all settings on (BF3) and I had my page file turned off So it would crash to desktop but I couldn't breach it.

With drivers, you may get a fps boost when Nvidia optimize drivers for said game.
 
Last edited:
Thanks gregster , makes interesting reading as a rule of thumb .
The V.Ram usauge between the two resolutions is much lower , than the logical factor , that 3 screens equals 3 times the data ect . that way the 1500MB would be 4500MB for surround .
But I know in gaming wise , the side monitors are lesser intensive as are peripheral vision , watching my son on battlefield for example , as he swings around , the detail deffinition increases when he turns enough for it to be displayed from side screen to centre .
Also I would imagine the coding is compressed into smaller calculations both reducing the physical data required so 3 screens dont equal 3 times the data n thus VRAM .

Thanks for all your help , Iv got the conclusion over the weekend to make , Would I go 3 way sli before the next generation , or stick with one or two x 2 GB in which case ill get back an extra £80 .
Thats the problem of with going surround , there is no going back lol .
 
Last edited:
Any saved money is not to be sniffed at :).

The reason for the perceived drop in quality in the periphery screens is that there isn't a POV on that angle so it has to stretch the widest the game can do across the two remaining screens.

Wouldn't be fair (to be fair!) to have a POV on all 3 angles. You'd see insane amounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom