Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx 680 4GB owners, Crysis 3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 28, 2013 12:31:48 AM

Hi there, I plan on buying a GTX 680 4GB and wanted to know what maximum setting can you run with a 60 FPS counter. Thanks :bounce:  :D  :p 
February 28, 2013 12:56:41 AM

CompBuilder said:
Hu there, I plan on buying a GTX 680 4GB and wanted to know what maximum setting can you run with a 60 FPS counter. Thanks :bounce:  :D  :p 

MSAAx8
2560x1600
only setting to put on medium or high is water as it can drasticly decline FPS
What resolution will you be playing on?
February 28, 2013 12:57:27 AM

meowmix44 said:
MSAAx8
2560x1600
only setting to put on medium or high is water as it can drasticly decline FPS
What resolution will you be playing on?


I will be playing on 1920x1080
Related resources
February 28, 2013 12:59:51 AM

CompBuilder said:
I will be playing on 1920x1080

Is the GTX 680 going to be OCed? Who is the manufactorer?
February 28, 2013 1:03:35 AM

If it is a Gigabyte Windforce 3X GTX 680 OC, or ASUS then you can play all max, like allE Ultra. The 680 is overkill for 1920x1080
Edit:It's a Ultra Overkill
February 28, 2013 1:05:21 AM

CompBuilder said:
I plan to get a EVGA GTX 680 4GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... I will probably add a second one later

Those cards may run hotter, and you may experience problems with the heat if it gets worse but your playing on 1920x1080. So by far you still have a bit of an overkill. It will run Crysis 3 but beware Vsync limits FPS to 30. And the game is glitchy right now:( 
February 28, 2013 1:07:48 AM

meowmix44 said:
If it is a Gigabyte Windforce 3X GTX 680 OC, or ASUS then you can play all max, like all Ultra. The 680 is overkill for 1920x1080


I have read many reviews that maxing out a GTX 680 at 1920x1080 get low FPS like 30FPS. I want to make sure I can play the game well with a good product

February 28, 2013 1:11:33 AM

I will try to see and mess around with the settings but I will also take a look into different card. Thanks for your help!! :D 
February 28, 2013 1:22:10 AM

Can I just throw out there that the 680 is somewhat of a poor choice?
It's only 5% faster than a 670, but it's 25-30% more expensive.

Also, you don't need 4GB for 1080p - having more VRAM is like going from 16 to 32 MB of RAM in your computer - the only time it would give better performance is if you don't already have enough. 2GB is more than plenty unless you play skyrim fully modded with 4k texture packs.

Finally, playing crysis 3 at 30 fps is not like playing other games at 30 fps - crysis has motion blur, because it's designed to look better when playing at lower framerates.
February 28, 2013 1:26:02 AM

Not enough. Step up to GTX 690.
February 28, 2013 2:56:00 AM

DarkSable said:
Can I just throw out there that the 680 is somewhat of a poor choice?
It's only 5% faster than a 670, but it's 25-30% more expensive.

Also, you don't need 4GB for 1080p - having more VRAM is like going from 16 to 32 MB of RAM in your computer - the only time it would give better performance is if you don't already have enough. 2GB is more than plenty unless you play skyrim fully modded with 4k texture packs.

Finally, playing crysis 3 at 30 fps is not like playing other games at 30 fps - crysis has motion blur, because it's designed to look better when playing at lower framerates.


You have a point, just like meow mix I am still looking for cards and I am taking recommendations. What possible settings can I play on a gtx 670
February 28, 2013 2:57:07 AM

cgner said:
Not enough. Step up to GTX 690.


Thanks for the recommendation but currently I don't have the budget for it :( 
February 28, 2013 3:08:21 AM

CompBuilder said:
You have a point, just like meow mix I am still looking for cards and I am taking recommendations. What possible settings can I play on a gtx 670


The exact same settings you can play on a GTX 680, which is why it's a silly purchase right now for $100 extra. After both cards are overclocked, there's only about a 2% difference between them.

(The 690 is a card for people with more money than brains - it's WAY overkill for a single monitor and badly designed for multiple monitors.)

One possibility for you to consider would be two 660ti cards. It's a pretty sexy setup, and might be within your price range.
February 28, 2013 5:28:54 AM

I'm playing at 1920x1080 with ultra settings and 4x SMAA. Using a GTX 670 - Look at signature.

I made a video of the performance. The avg. FPS I got was 45, when I ran a benchmark with FRAPS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1_zPKa-AU
February 28, 2013 10:36:53 AM

DarkSable said:
The exact same settings you can play on a GTX 680, which is why it's a silly purchase right now for $100 extra. After both cards are overclocked, there's only about a 2% difference between them.

(The 690 is a card for people with more money than brains - it's WAY overkill for a single monitor and badly designed for multiple monitors.)

One possibility for you to consider would be two 660ti cards. It's a pretty sexy setup, and might be within your price range.

There is some merit to the fact that there is less performance per buck the more you spend on a GPU, but what you have to say about the GTX 690 is so wrong. The 690 is a perfect solution for multiple monitors. It's just poorly priced.

Look at the 690 in recent benchmarks at 5760x1080 and tell us all - based on your own personal experience with a 690 - why it is a poorly designed card for a three-monitor setup?:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-p...

We see from this review, the 690 offers great performance with a measely (sarcasm) 2GB of VRAM with just about every title across three screens. The one fault of the 690 is it offers the equivalent performance of two 670s but costs $200 more. I guess if I were limited to a microATX platform with only one 16x slot available on my motherboard (ie in the case of a multi-purpose gaming/htpc with three 50" screens) or something similar, this might make the most sense. Another area where a 690 would make sense is if you were to get two of them to push a three-screen surround setup with 120Hz monitors or three 2650x1600 monitors. All I'm saying is there are times where a 690 makes sense.

One 690 generates significantly less heat than two 670s. A 690 is a really good solution if you want to know you're going to stay at or above 60fps even in Crysis 3 (Crysis which again seems to be the measuring stick) at very high settings (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_...) while using only one slot on your motherboard.

I think there are definitely limited applications for spending the extra $$$ on the 690 card, though it is not poorly designed. It is poorly priced for high-volume sales. This could be entirely intentional.

That being said... A 690 might not be a good solution if OP is looking for 60fps on a single 1080p monitor 60Hz monitor. Additionally, 4GB per GPU is not even necessary across three 1080p screens as demonstrated by the first review linked above.

If I were to buy something today that makes sense economically and would meet a goal of at least 60fps performance with most titles (with the exception of Crysis 3) with everything cranked in 1080p, I'd probably pick up a 670. If I wanted to know I'd be cranking the eye candy for the next couple of years and/or might entertain the idea of a surround setup, I'd get two 670s. Two would also run you about $100-$200 over the cost of a 680 with 4GB. You'll realize significantly increased video capabilities in two 670s with 2GB compared to a single 680 with 4GB. For the most part, your going to get equivalent performance between a single 680 with 2GB and a single 680 with 4GB and where the 4GB card gives you any advantage whatsoever, it's going to be near negligible.
February 28, 2013 5:21:15 PM

ubercake said:
There is some merit to the fact that there is less performance per buck the more you spend on a GPU, but what you have to say about the GTX 690 is so wrong. The 690 is a perfect solution for multiple monitors. It's just poorly priced.


It is poorly priced, especially when compared to multi-card setups - the reason I say it's not the best solution for a triple monitor setup is because 2GB usable vram (remember, the 690 is NOT a 4GB card, it's two 2GB chips in SLI, meaning the VRAM doesn't stack) is often not enough if you're looking to turn everything up. There are a LOT of games which will have problems with that.

For playing at 60Hz on a single 1080p monitor, well... everyone agrees it's overkill. (Hell, I'm happy with a single 670 on a 120Hz 1080p monitor.)

I just found the 690 to have only one use in which it was truly useful - the one you mentioned earlier, which is a small form factor computer that has excellent cooling.


But yeah, we do end up both agreeing - right now the best solution, value-wise, is a single 2GB 670.
March 1, 2013 12:17:48 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
I'm playing at 1920x1080 with ultra settings and 4x SMAA. Using a GTX 670 - Look at signature.

I made a video of the performance. The avg. FPS I got was 45, when I ran a benchmark with FRAPS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1_zPKa-AU


Thanks for the Video I will look into different cards
March 1, 2013 12:19:12 AM

DarkSable said:
It is poorly priced, especially when compared to multi-card setups - the reason I say it's not the best solution for a triple monitor setup is because 2GB usable vram (remember, the 690 is NOT a 4GB card, it's two 2GB chips in SLI, meaning the VRAM doesn't stack) is often not enough if you're looking to turn everything up. There are a LOT of games which will have problems with that.

For playing at 60Hz on a single 1080p monitor, well... everyone agrees it's overkill. (Hell, I'm happy with a single 670 on a 120Hz 1080p monitor.)

I just found the 690 to have only one use in which it was truly useful - the one you mentioned earlier, which is a small form factor computer that has excellent cooling.


But yeah, we do end up both agreeing - right now the best solution, value-wise, is a single 2GB 670.



Thanks I wil take a look at the GTX 660ti sli and see what kind of price range it is
March 1, 2013 12:19:50 AM

DarkSable said:
It is poorly priced, especially when compared to multi-card setups - the reason I say it's not the best solution for a triple monitor setup is because 2GB usable vram (remember, the 690 is NOT a 4GB card, it's two 2GB chips in SLI, meaning the VRAM doesn't stack) is often not enough if you're looking to turn everything up. There are a LOT of games which will have problems with that.

For playing at 60Hz on a single 1080p monitor, well... everyone agrees it's overkill. (Hell, I'm happy with a single 670 on a 120Hz 1080p monitor.)

I just found the 690 to have only one use in which it was truly useful - the one you mentioned earlier, which is a small form factor computer that has excellent cooling.


But yeah, we do end up both agreeing - right now the best solution, value-wise, is a single 2GB 670.


Thanks for the recommendation I will take a look at the 660ti sli and see how it fit my budget
March 1, 2013 12:32:58 AM

Shall I go with a GTX 670 2GB in SLI or will SLI be a overkill
March 1, 2013 1:16:09 AM

A single 2GB 670 will max out 99% of games out there between 55-60 fps. Most games it'll max at 120 fps without a care in the world.

It's sort of the sweet spot for gaming at 1080p. If you want to get a minimum of 60fps at 1080p, go with two 660tis...

But I'd personally save the $200 and just get a nice 670.
March 1, 2013 4:54:29 AM

i think the radeon hd7850 will be better than this...
March 1, 2013 10:19:29 AM

I'd go with 2 670s in SLI. The reason I think SLI is not overkill is because it sets you up to maximize potential for Nvidia Surround on three monitors or keeps your framerates way up if you decide to get a single 120Hz monitor. Both are great future options for you.

Also, you pretty much need to go there (SLI) to play Crysis 3 with all the eye candy.
March 1, 2013 5:43:38 PM

abhanan93 said:
i think the radeon hd7850 will be better than this...


I hope you're a troll as opposed to really being that ignorant.


ubercake said:
I'd go with 2 670s in SLI. The reason I think SLI is not overkill is because it sets you up to maximize potential for Nvidia Surround on three monitors or keeps your framerates way up if you decide to get a single 120Hz monitor. Both are great future options for you.

Also, you pretty much need to go there (SLI) to play Crysis 3 with all the eye candy.


Yes and no. If he goes out and buys two more monitors, then he can buy a second 670 - there's no point to spend it now when it won't net him any practical benefit. (Same thing applies with the 120Hz monitor.)

That being said, I have a 120Hz monitor and a small form factor PC with a single 670. My experiences have been fantastic - I can count on one hand the number of games I can't max at 60fps, and on all my digits, the ones I can't max at 120fps.

What it comes down to, all told, is that the handful of games that are extremely hard to max are either badly optimized, in which case a second card won't help much, or are (like crysis 3), designed to look just fine when playing at lower framerates.

With everything flat out maxxed on crysis 3, I'm getting about 35-40fps at 1080p. The thing, however, is that it plays just as smoothly as any other game at 60fps, because it's not lagging down to 40fps, it's staying constant there, and has motion blur to correct for the low framerate. With most settings turned to very high and water turned to medium, I'm getting 70-80 fps. It feels a little bit more fluid, and more game-like as opposed to movie-like, because I'm able to turn down the motion blur, but there's basically no visual difference except in water... and even two 670s would struggle to max out a water-heavy screen in that game.
March 1, 2013 6:34:43 PM

DarkSable said:
...
Yes and no. If he goes out and buys two more monitors, then he can buy a second 670 - there's no point to spend it now when it won't net him any practical benefit. (Same thing applies with the 120Hz monitor.)

That being said, I have a 120Hz monitor and a small form factor PC with a single 670. My experiences have been fantastic - I can count on one hand the number of games I can't max at 60fps, and on all my digits, the ones I can't max at 120fps.

What it comes down to, all told, is that the handful of games that are extremely hard to max are either badly optimized, in which case a second card won't help much, or are (like crysis 3), designed to look just fine when playing at lower framerates.

With everything flat out maxxed on crysis 3, I'm getting about 35-40fps at 1080p. The thing, however, is that it plays just as smoothly as any other game at 60fps, because it's not lagging down to 40fps, it's staying constant there, and has motion blur to correct for the low framerate. With most settings turned to very high and water turned to medium, I'm getting 70-80 fps. It feels a little bit more fluid, and more game-like as opposed to movie-like, because I'm able to turn down the motion blur, but there's basically no visual difference except in water... and even two 670s would struggle to max out a water-heavy screen in that game.

I also have a 120Hz monitor and 2 680s and ran that way for about a year. Very good setup. I know what it's like. The greatest thing about the 120Hz monitor is you don't have to deal with tearing whatsoever. Tearing beyond 120Hz, if it does happen, is not even perceivable until the framerates are in the 400s. So I know where you're coming from with regard to the 120Hz experience with gaming.

I just switched over to a multi-screen setup on 60Hz screens to and to see what it's like. I'm pretty well sold on the Nvidia Surround tech now. I like the increase real-estate and in comes in handy big time in multi-player BF3.

A 690 would be equivalent to 2 670s. Taking a look at the Crysis 3 benchmark and the 690:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_...

My setup now (3x1600x900) has 224000 more pixels to account for than the 2560x1600 monitor and a single 670 averages 26fps (this means there are lower and higher framerates). Crysis 3 is supposed to be an example of what we'll be looking at in upcoming titles. I can't even imagine what gaming would be like on the low end of that average.

I understand your point of view, but when it comes to resolutions beyond 1080p, 2 cards is a must if you want to play everything smoothly (above 30fps) with full details at resolutions higher than 1080p. Two 670s also makes sense if you don't want to compromise and turn any details in certain games down while maintaining playable framerates, as you mentioned with the water at 1080p.

New game releases are just going to require more from our hardware. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Is one card enough for 1080p today? For the most part. But if OP has the means to get two, why not?
March 1, 2013 6:55:48 PM

ubercake said:
New game releases are just going to require more from our hardware. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Is one card enough for 1080p today? For the most part. But if OP has the means to get two, why not?


I agree with you that a dual card setup is necessary for a three-monitor setup, but the OP doesn't have one yet. To my eyes, it makes far more sense to get a single card now and have more versatility in one's options - the OP will be able to get a second card if needed, or have the reserve money set aside to upgrade to a newer card further down the road.

A single high-end card is always going to be enough for the enthusiast resolution of the time - yes, games are getting more graphically intense, but video cards are getting more and more impressive as well. I highly doubt we're going to have another Crysis-like game that requires insane amounts of GPU power to run, nor are the consoles going to overpower the PC market again any time soon.
March 1, 2013 11:01:16 PM

Ok thanks, I will go for a single GTX 670 since I have the money, Thanks
March 16, 2013 3:26:37 PM

you may be right about the 4 gb versions if you don't take in consideration the 3D aspect.In 3D the tendency is to reduce your FPS by half. As well as having a 4 gb buffer will reduce the fetching time so overall will increase your FPS. And the mods and extra textures will eat up your VRAM like a kid eating chocolates. Is not the first time that i read that Skyrim with the mods jumps the 2,5gb limit. And when people say that there is little difference between Ultra and medium....should use glasses. There is...and is pretty easy to spot it....Play any game ( including Crysis2 and now 3) in medium and the jump to ultra. Is all about details and there are quite a lot more. I had a 670 sold it and got a 680 4gb. I couldn't be happier. Or you could wait for GTX Gen 7xx and then get a 680. That 2% difference when OC is more like 6% with the newest driver...
March 16, 2013 4:10:06 PM

razzoo said:
you may be right about the 4 gb versions if you don't take in consideration the 3D aspect.In 3D the tendency is to reduce your FPS by half. As well as having a 4 gb buffer will reduce the fetching time so overall will increase your FPS. And the mods and extra textures will eat up your VRAM like a kid eating chocolates. Is not the first time that i read that Skyrim with the mods jumps the 2,5gb limit. And when people say that there is little difference between Ultra and medium....should use glasses. There is...and is pretty easy to spot it....Play any game ( including Crysis2 and now 3) in medium and the jump to ultra. Is all about details and there are quite a lot more. I had a 670 sold it and got a 680 4gb. I couldn't be happier. Or you could wait for GTX Gen 7xx and then get a 680. That 2% difference when OC is more like 6% with the newest driver...

3D has nothing to do with the VRAM, but you're correct in that it will reduce FPS by half.

You're dead wrong, however, that having more VRAM will give you more FPS. It simply doesn't unless you're using more VRAM than your card has.
March 17, 2013 5:41:37 AM

DarkSable said:
razzoo said:
you may be right about the 4 gb versions if you don't take in consideration the 3D aspect.In 3D the tendency is to reduce your FPS by half. As well as having a 4 gb buffer will reduce the fetching time so overall will increase your FPS. And the mods and extra textures will eat up your VRAM like a kid eating chocolates. Is not the first time that i read that Skyrim with the mods jumps the 2,5gb limit. And when people say that there is little difference between Ultra and medium....should use glasses. There is...and is pretty easy to spot it....Play any game ( including Crysis2 and now 3) in medium and the jump to ultra. Is all about details and there are quite a lot more. I had a 670 sold it and got a 680 4gb. I couldn't be happier. Or you could wait for GTX Gen 7xx and then get a 680. That 2% difference when OC is more like 6% with the newest driver...

3D has nothing to do with the VRAM, but you're correct in that it will reduce FPS by half.

You're dead wrong, however, that having more VRAM will give you more FPS. It simply doesn't unless you're using more VRAM than your card has.


This is true. VRAM doesn't equal more frame rates. That's like saying you're going to make your system's CPU faster by going from 8GB to 16GB of RAM in your system. It just doesn't happen.

Some newer games will consume as much VRAM as is available. That doesn't mean it's necessary to run them effectively or to get higher framerates.
May 16, 2013 4:05:14 PM

meowmix44 said:
If it is a Gigabyte Windforce 3X GTX 680 OC, or ASUS then you can play all max, like allE Ultra. The 680 is overkill for 1920x1080
Edit:It's a Ultra Overkill


The 680 struggles to manage 20fps on max settings what planet are u on overkill you don't know what u talking about and yes @ 1080p
May 16, 2013 9:59:19 PM

DarkSable said:
A single 2GB 670 will max out 99% of games out there between 55-60 fps. Most games it'll max at 120 fps without a care in the world.

It's sort of the sweet spot for gaming at 1080p. If you want to get a minimum of 60fps at 1080p, go with two 660tis...

But I'd personally save the $200 and just get a nice 670.


You may be stretching your 99% number there. If you go back to 2000 and figure all games, sure, but if you look at games released this year, a single 670 will not max out almost any game. Especially saying it'll max out most games at 120 FPS without a care. You may be able to find a reasonable compromise, where you play at high to ultra settings without AA or something of the sort.

With the games I play, I have only played 1 games in the last year that I could get 120 FPS at near max settings with a single 680 (Diablo 3). Now maybe it is because of the games I play, but you are making it sound way to easy to max out games.

From my experience, going to near maxed out settings at 60 FPS requires a single 670, to gear near 120 FPS requires 2 and a highly OC'ed top in CPU.
August 3, 2013 1:43:24 AM

Radeon hd 7850 will be better..
August 3, 2013 10:53:39 AM

just my observation..but why isnt anyone suggestion to the user to go for gtx 770.. that card is the best bang for buck for a resolution at 1920x1080
August 3, 2013 7:58:42 PM

caj said:
just my observation..but why isnt anyone suggestion to the user to go for gtx 770.. that card is the best bang for buck for a resolution at 1920x1080

Look at the date of the post.
December 2, 2013 1:57:28 PM

bystander said:
DarkSable said:
A single 2GB 670 will max out 99% of games out there between 55-60 fps. Most games it'll max at 120 fps without a care in the world.

It's sort of the sweet spot for gaming at 1080p. If you want to get a minimum of 60fps at 1080p, go with two 660tis...

But I'd personally save the $200 and just get a nice 670.


You may be stretching your 99% number there. If you go back to 2000 and figure all games, sure, but if you look at games released this year, a single 670 will not max out almost any game. Especially saying it'll max out most games at 120 FPS without a care. You may be able to find a reasonable compromise, where you play at high to ultra settings without AA or something of the sort.

With the games I play, I have only played 1 games in the last year that I could get 120 FPS at near max settings with a single 680 (Diablo 3). Now maybe it is because of the games I play, but you are making it sound way to easy to max out games.

From my experience, going to near maxed out settings at 60 FPS requires a single 670, to gear near 120 FPS requires 2 and a highly OC'ed top in CPU.


my 2 pennies on the original quote
one 670 cant even max the first crisis @ 1080p which is around 6 years old and most certainly cant touch max setting on any new game engine that is pushing the boundaries of quality. you might be able to max copy and pasted stale bread like cod but that's not really a new game is it.

December 2, 2013 2:07:16 PM

reedy777 said:
my 2 pennies on the original quote
one 670 cant even max the first crisis @ 1080p which is around 6 years old and most certainly cant touch max setting on any new game engine that is pushing the boundaries of quality. you might be able to max copy and pasted stale bread like cod but that's not really a new game is it.


That's because the first Crysis is very poorly coded, which is pretty much common knowledge now. The game itself is what's preventing it from running at 60fps on ultra - as soon as you use a custom config and take out, motion blur (which was a large part of the problem), it becomes as difficult to max as it should be, rather than simply broken... and yes, a 670 can do that just fine.

That being said, you come into a thread with what's really a 7-month necro acting snotty without knowing what you're talking about. Please don't.

December 3, 2013 10:50:22 AM

DarkSable said:
reedy777 said:
my 2 pennies on the original quote
one 670 cant even max the first crisis @ 1080p which is around 6 years old and most certainly cant touch max setting on any new game engine that is pushing the boundaries of quality. you might be able to max copy and pasted stale bread like cod but that's not really a new game is it.


That's because the first Crysis is very poorly coded, which is pretty much common knowledge now. The game itself is what's preventing it from running at 60fps on ultra - as soon as you use a custom config and take out, motion blur (which was a large part of the problem), it becomes as difficult to max as it should be, rather than simply broken... and yes, a 670 can do that just fine.

That being said, you come into a thread with what's really a 7-month necro acting snotty without knowing what you're talking about. Please don't.

my 680 @ 1150 core ,2600k @ 4.8 1.42v ,8gb vengeance ram @ 1600, raid 0 drive with read and write speeds of 1gb/s all of which are effectively cooled don't manage that. so I have to call BS on the claim that a 670 somehow manages it. I was using 3 680's playing 1080p to get close to a smooth 60 fps on some of the new games at max setting. its kind of like what Clarkson said it takes the same power to get to 200 mph from 160mph as it does to get to 160 in the first place. if you said you can nearly max games that's a fair statement but your not maxing any new game with a 670. metro last light, crisis 3, wolfienstein new order, project cars even bf4 which is a half job at best.
I guess none of these lot no what they are talking about either
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2281445




!