Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

680 Discussion (2gb not enuf Vram - agree or disagree)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 14, 2012 3:18:23 AM

The 680s are amazing yes!..
but, I cant accept the 2gb Vram limitation,
yeah I know "2gb is fine and dandy cause no current games ever use more than 1.9gb at 1080p etc etc etc" ...
BUT, 2gb is not enough for future proof reassurance, there's a couple games almost maxing out the 2gb limit as is, and give it 2 years, maybe even 1 year, and games will well undoubtedly breach those 2gbs.

And not to mention SLI future proofing,
I mean if you wanna plug in 2 or even 3 extra 680 into your system down the road sometime for that extra power, well shame, cause the 2gb is gonna bottleneck the additional power due to the graphical demands of the future, and a lot of that extra processing power from 2way, 3way, and especially 4 way SLI will go to waste.

Anyway,
The reason for this Discussion is to vent some of my frustration while I wait for the 4gb cards to be released.
And that's when the 680 will really be amazing! (in terms of future proofing).

What ever you point of view, if disgree or agree, feel free to comment, justify, & discuss bellow :) 

My point of view:
I'm not saying 2gb isn't enough VRAM - for now,
What I am saying is that it wont be for long.

a c 217 U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 3:27:58 AM

I disagree with you.

Until this year, pretty much no game required more than 1GB unless you are using a 3 monitor gaming system, 1GB was plenty. For the last 2-3 years, AMD has been releasing 2GB cards, and we are finally seeing games start to take advantage of it. Now the top end cards come with 3GB of vram. It'll likely be another 2-4 years before dev's start to break the 2GB barrier.

Dev's don't willy nilly add resource requirements. They take the hardware of the day and design around those limitations. You won't likely see a need for more than 2GB any time soon, because that is what the top in cards have, with the 7900's as the exception and look how long it took to take advantage of the last 2 generations of cards vram exceptions.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 3:34:27 AM

I think there will be some niche situations where 2 GB hurts the 680, just as there were some niche situations where 1.5 GB hurt the 580, but by the time 2 gigs of vram is really a performance choke, the 680 will be terribly underpowered/outdated anyways.

Just my thoughts.

Some of this depends on what the next console generation brings about...
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 3:40:31 AM

Single monitor? 2gb is plenty. 2 1080p monitors and SOME games might run in to small problems, but most will still be fine. Triple monitor on other other hand will tax the 2gb in many demanding games at high settings.

What AMD is doing is future proofing its cards. Atm a 680 or a 7970 is wasted on any single monitor set up, but say in 2+ years you want to SLI/Crossfire another card so you can still play all the latest games at max settings. Imagine you have a 5870 from 2+ years ago, and its starting to show its age, you crossfire them, but now you run into issues with 1gb buffer with the more demanding games.

AMD remedied this with the 6000 and 7000 series. A 560-448 or a 570 will have problems down the road if u SLI them due to the 1gb/1.25gb buffer. A 2gb 6950 and a 6970 will not, for example.

In short, the 2gb on the 680 GTX os more than enough for NOW, and the 3gb on the 7970 os overkill in most situations. Fast forward 1-2 years and crossfire/SLI set ups, and you can see why Nvidia might be cutting corners in the wrong place.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 3:46:12 AM

It's been my experience that a GPU is obsoleted by it's lack of "DX" support or shader capabilities way before it's polygon pushing power becomes an issue. I would still be using my gtx 285 if it wasn't for DX 11 and I only upgraded to a gtx 680 because of my three displays.
m
0
l
a c 80 U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 3:48:09 AM

SLI does not increase memory needs anyway so you main point about a bottleneck is a little odd, and what games use 1.9gig at 1080p? its always been shown 1gig was plenty for 1080p. Unless you ate going to rung multiple highres monitors it doesn't matter at this point
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 3:50:40 AM

I dont disagree with anyone here
and I spose it all comes down to preferance really,
for 99% of people 2gb will be enough, and I agree with this completely
I just think for that 1% circumstance of futureproofing with the plan to SLI everytime your card/cards fall behind current demands.
only in this case do I think that 2gb isnt enough
as vilenjan said it is enough for now but, and i totally agree, that in most cases this is true, and that the majority of problems will be with buying another card down the road if thats ur plan.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 3:53:18 AM

I do think that the vram issue could be a concern in dual GPU setups...

It will be very irrelevant, but very interesting to see how CF 7970s stack up against SLI 680s in a couple years' time.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 3:53:34 AM

metro 2033 uses 1.9gb of VRAM when at absolute max when run on 1080p (this includes the use of windows aero)

and when i said vram will bottleneck what i mean is that when demands are high enough that multi SLI is needed with the 680, the proccessing power will be well above adiquate, but it'll be held back by the 2gb vram by this point
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 4:00:54 AM

Russell_PC said:
metro 2033 uses 1.9gb of VRAM when at absolute max when run on 1080p (this includes the use of windows aero)

and when i said vram will bottleneck what i mean is that when demands are high enough that multi SLI is needed with the 680, the proccessing power will be well above adiquate, but it'll be held back by the 2gb vram by this point


SLI does not require more vram. Pretty much the only thing that increases the need for vram is higher resolutions or extreme AA situations. Why do you keep saying that SLI will need more vram?
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 4:06:07 AM

Im saying, in the future, when ur single 680 is falling behind, and u decide to by another one so u can get ur framerate back up to 60+ at max settings.

im not saying SLI uses vram, im saying there will be a point when the 680 can no longer max out the games of the future, so you'll need to buy another one,

now you'll have 2 x 680s and ur proccesing power will be able to run these games again,

BUT chances are that these games will now use more that 2gb of vram, and even tho the ur new SLI configuration can process these future requirements, the vram will no longer be enough

i never said sli uses vram, all i said was games require both vram and proccessing power, and there will be a point where sli processing power will be enough but these future requirement will exceed 2gbs
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 4:07:05 AM

haha i am getting the 4gb :) 

just foruming while i wait for it to be released
m
0
l
a c 88 U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 4:10:41 AM

In all the reviews and benchmarks the 2gb on 680 seems to perform quite well against the 7970 with the 3gb of vram.In many instances it even out performs the 3gb card, I believe vram becomes an issue mostly with lower end cards, the 680 has enough guts to perfrom with 2gb without a hitch on even high resolutions. Do you remember the 580 1.5 gb and the 3gb versions , it made hardly any difference in the benchmarks.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 4:13:51 AM

its definitely a beast of a card that's for sure.
and you're right, Its been proven to be the best single gpu available and 2gb vram is well an truely enough for now

I'm just an extremest, and a paranoid future proofer, and for me it isnt enough :) 
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 4:16:05 AM

I just like to here peoples opinions on the matter
Its good to hear what people think about the situation
while I wait for my 4gb card to be released
hence why I started this thread :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 4:18:35 AM

SLI does by itslef does not increase the need for more ram, but the coept behind it does. In SLI you are doubling (well not really doubling, but 70-80% increase) of the GPUs, this is done so that GPUs can process more data, but you are not increasing the vram to compensate.

Example time:
An AMD 5970 will still run anything there is today in terms of raw processing power. But the card technically only has a 1gb buffer (2gb split between 2 gpus), while a few games will tax a 5970s computational power, many will bottleneck on the 1gb buffer (world of warcraft on ultra at 1080p on a single monitor breaks 1gb). This is bad.

An 590 GTX and 6990 have about the same computational power, yet the 590 GTX only has a 1.5gb buffer, while the 6990 has a 2gb buffer. When they were release, it was not an issue, but you can tell that its starting to become a problem now and will only get worse in the coming year.

Than again good luck buying a 680 GTX its sold out everywhere I looked :p 
m
0
l
a c 88 U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 4:19:38 AM

Hey I agree with you tho , while I see no big issue with the 680 with 2gb,

I definately prefer to buy the 4gb version, Id rather have double the vram!
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 3:05:15 PM

Since VRAM is so important and everything, we all know that a 4870 2GB beats out a 8800 Ultra...

Not.

The 680 is the most powerful card on the market, and will be until the 7990 is unveiled.

Speed>Size.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 6:48:08 PM

PCgamer, grats on reading WHY vram is important and making yourself look like a fool. If you actually read the comments, you would see that the bigger buffer is beneficial for the future for those that will sli/crossfire their cards. And yes a crossfired 4870, even the 1gb version will outperform an SLI 8800 ultra because the 8800 will choke on its small 768mb ram.

Given a more modern example, SLI a 560ti and crossfire 6950 2GB and than. Both these setups are very strong, yet one will chock at highest settings in many new games on a single monitor, I will well you guess which.

As I mentioned earlier, WoW (not a graphically demanding game in shape or form) will break the 1gb vram barrier on ultra settings at 1080p.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 9:10:15 PM

vilenjan said:
PCgamer, grats on reading WHY vram is important and making yourself look like a fool. If you actually read the comments, you would see that the bigger buffer is beneficial for the future for those that will sli/crossfire their cards. And yes a crossfired 4870, even the 1gb version will outperform an SLI 8800 ultra because the 8800 will choke on its small 768mb ram.

Given a more modern example, SLI a 560ti and crossfire 6950 2GB and than. Both these setups are very strong, yet one will chock at highest settings in many new games on a single monitor, I will well you guess which.

As I mentioned earlier, WoW (not a graphically demanding game in shape or form) will break the 1gb vram barrier on ultra settings at 1080p.

I am not a fool.

But I am sleepy. Wake me when the 2GB 4870 passes the 1.2GB 570, crossfire/SLi or not.

I am not saying that VRAM is not important. I am saying that speed is far more important than size. Because it is. Period.

A 4GB 6990 gets thumped by a 580SLi at 1.5GB, and a 6GB 7990 will be thumped by a 680SLi, irrespective of definition.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2012 9:48:51 PM

PCgamer81 said:
I am not a fool.

But I am sleepy. Wake me when the 2GB 4870 passes the 1.2GB 570, crossfire/SLi or not.

I am not saying that VRAM is not important. I am saying that speed is far more important than size. Because it is. Period. Deal with it.

A 4GB 6990 gets thumped by a 580SLi at 1.5GB, and a 6GB 7990 will be thumped by a 680SLi, irrespective of definition.

Speed>Size. Capiche?


But you see I did not use a 2gb 4870 in my example, thats overkill and i know it.

Can a 6990 ever effectively use 4gb? probably not, will a 580 GX SLI or a 590 GTX be bottlenecked by the 1.5gb of ram in some situations (more and more as time goes by)? you betcha.

Nvidia is, for no good reason, bieng very thrifty with its vram allocations, and AMD, for msot of its cards, is right on.

Again if all you are ever gonna use is a single card, you should be fine, but with SLI and dual gpu cards, you will run in to vram limitations on the Nvidia, but rarely on AMD cards. I would rather have a little bit more vram than I need than have my set up choke with too little.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 11:06:50 PM

vilenjan said:
But you see I did not use a 2gb 4870 in my example, thats overkill and i know it.

Can a 6990 ever effectively use 4gb? probably not, will a 580 GX SLI or a 590 GTX be bottlenecked by the 1.5gb of ram in some situations (more and more as time goes by)? you betcha.

Nvidia is, for no good reason, bieng very thrifty with its vram allocations, and AMD, for msot of its cards, is right on.

Again if all you are ever gonna use is a single card, you should be fine, but with SLI and dual gpu cards, you will run in to vram limitations on the Nvidia, but rarely on AMD cards. I would rather have a little bit more vram than I need than have my set up choke with too little.

I would much prefer the extra VRAM, also. More VRAM is almost always a good thing and never a bad thing. I do think your argument holds water, IMO.

But at the same time, when I do decide to upgrade, I am going to go with two 680s and not two 7970s or even a 7990 like I had planned on earlier. I am not going to let VRAM factor so far into my decision that I will choose a weaker card. I typed it in bold, because that's everything I'm trying to say.
m
0
l
April 14, 2012 11:30:11 PM

metro 2033 uses so much vram because it's a horribly optimized game. Does it really look that good for what it uses?

The only game using up vram on the 680 is battlefield 3 and that's under extreme resolution/settings.

There are also 4gb 680's coming out.
m
0
l
April 17, 2012 12:49:54 PM

I play a modded Skyrim at 1920x1200 and I've maxed out my 1.5 gb limit on my 3 way 580 sli set up. I understand the OP's point about wasted power. Though the memory is not shared, frame rates are capped by the swapping of textures into system memory which is horribly slower than the gpu's on board memory. The VRAM bottlenecks and I'm getting 40 fps in some cases. Before anyone starts with the "that's more than playable" argument. I think most sli users are hoping for "more than playable" for the amount invested. I should be getting a solid 60 fps and I'm not because my VRAM is maxed. All it takes is a few high res textures and you are stuttering all over the place. I think currently 3 gb's is the sweet spot. Given my experience I'd wait for a 4 gb 680.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
April 17, 2012 1:49:10 PM

sixstringchild said:
I play a modded Skyrim at 1920x1200 and I've maxed out my 1.5 gb limit on my 3 way 580 sli set up. I understand the OP's point about wasted power. Though the memory is not shared, frame rates are capped by the swapping of textures into system memory which is horribly slower than the gpu's on board memory. The VRAM bottlenecks and I'm getting 40 fps in some cases. Before anyone starts with the "that's more than playable" argument. I think most sli users are hoping for "more than playable" for the amount invested. I should be getting a solid 60 fps and I'm not because my VRAM is maxed. All it takes is a few high res textures and you are stuttering all over the place. I think currently 3 gb's is the sweet spot. Given my experience I'd wait for a 4 gb 680.


You are assuming that with the modded Skryim, the reason you drop to 40 FPS occasionally, is due to vram and not the cpu. Skyrim is known to get CPU bottlenecked in certain areas causing some FPS dips.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2012 2:04:31 PM

PCgamer81 said:
Even at 5760x1200, the extra 1GB of VRAM didn't give the 7970x2 an advantage over the 680SLi.



Doesn't the 680 throttle down the framerate on the peripheral monitors when running in 3dsurround in order to increase FPS on the focus monitor? Could be one of the reasons why the 680's were able to keep up with only 2GB VRAM.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 9:35:51 AM

alrobichaud said:
Doesn't the 680 throttle down the framerate on the peripheral monitors when running in 3dsurround in order to increase FPS on the focus monitor? Could be one of the reasons why the 680's were able to keep up with only 2GB VRAM.

The 680s were able to "keep up"?

You act as if the 680 were the inferior card. The 680 is superior. That is my point. VRAM is never a reason to choose a weaker card.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 9:37:33 AM

sixstringchild said:
I play a modded Skyrim at 1920x1200 and I've maxed out my 1.5 gb limit on my 3 way 580 sli set up. I understand the OP's point about wasted power. Though the memory is not shared, frame rates are capped by the swapping of textures into system memory which is horribly slower than the gpu's on board memory. The VRAM bottlenecks and I'm getting 40 fps in some cases. Before anyone starts with the "that's more than playable" argument. I think most sli users are hoping for "more than playable" for the amount invested. I should be getting a solid 60 fps and I'm not because my VRAM is maxed. All it takes is a few high res textures and you are stuttering all over the place. I think currently 3 gb's is the sweet spot. Given my experience I'd wait for a 4 gb 680.

Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-...

...actual data.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 10:32:31 AM

PCgamer81 said:
The 680s were able to "keep up"?

You act as if the 680 were the inferior card. The 680 is superior. That is my point. VRAM is never a reason to choose a weaker card.



Well, I say they are roughly equal. I never said inferior. Not sure why you think the 680 is superior but everyone has their own opinion so I am not going to call you wrong. My point was in widescreen resolutions the 680 and 7970 generally have about the same framerate and the point I was trying to make was the 7970 maintains the same framerate across all 3 monitors and the 680 only maintains a high framerate on the center monitor while giving a lower framerate on the peripheral monitors. Would the 680 be able to keep up in widescreen gaming if it tried to maintain the same high framerate across all 3 monitors with only 2GB VRAM. That is the point I was trying to make.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 10:55:57 AM

To be honest no one has said anything that's incorrect.
the statements about 2 gb being enough vram are correct in the context used, & are well justified.
It all really just comes down to preference, and yes for most people 2gb is more then enough vram, but for us SLI hungry, futureproofing peoples out there with multi mon/3d setups the 4gb seems to be the safer choice, if not right now then definitely in the future.

I wouldnt go saying anyones wrong here and that u definitely need 4 or 2 gb of vram, and as alrobichaud just said it really is determined by preference.

and i completely agree with who ever said that they wouldnt let 2gb vram stop them from getting the 680 over the 7970 haha
the 680 is still the better card.

but for a minute few, (me included) the 2gb is really pushing it for what our goals are.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 11:02:11 AM

wow alot of people throwing around the non existent " future proof" in this thread.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:04:11 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-...

...actual data.


btw he said modded skyrim (probably heavily modded too) they didn't test that in the review u posted here. these reviews are only testing games that barely push the 1.5gb limit as it is and therefore no, or very minimal vram bottlenecking. heavily modded skyrim uses upto 2.5 gb of vram, and i do say HEAVILY, and in this scenario I can most definitely see how his statement would be true.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:05:39 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
wow alot of people throwing around the non existent " future proof" in this thread.


read the thread properly this time.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:08:44 AM

sorry, uncalled for i know. my bad
all i mean to say is that the term futureproofing in this scenario refers mainly to the use of future sli upgrading when ur current card falls behind standards.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:09:51 AM

I've seen 3 GB of vram usage at 1080p in skyrim (mods + ugrids and other ini tweaks = tons of vram)

If a 4 GB version is available on the 680, why not buy it? You're already spending so much money on a GPU, the extra cash shouldn't be all that big a deal. This is especially true for SLI. Sure, it may make little to no difference now, but why take the chance that you'll ever get vram bottlenecked? Being bottlenecked by vram, though rare, is one of the most frustrating experiences a gamer can have.
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:11:22 AM

+1 my thoughts exactly :) 
m
0
l
April 19, 2012 11:18:34 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-...

...actual data.



oh and also look at the graph for metro 2033 maxed out (2nd table) 1.5gb vs 3gb. its the only game there thats uses more than 1.5gbs of vram

the scaling for 1.5gb is a fraction of that of the 3gb.

so ur posted review actually proves him right :) 

sorry
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 2:40:34 AM

Russell_PC said:
oh and also look at the graph for metro 2033 maxed out (2nd table) 1.5gb vs 3gb. its the only game there thats uses more than 1.5gbs of vram

the scaling for 1.5gb is a fraction of that of the 3gb.

so ur posted review actually proves him right :) 

sorry


Uh, no. Metro 2033 is one game. One game out of many. In light of how DEAD EVEN every other comparison was, I am inclined to chalk that one up as an anomaly, and in light of the evidence - you know, actual evidence - every reasonable minded person would do the same.

Look at the actual resolutions being used (insanely high), coupled with the fact that even at such insanely high resolutions (which are beyond the scope of 99% of gamers), 3GB of VRAM nets virtually one big goose egg of a performance increase over it's 1.5GB counterpart.

So in the end, I think MY POINT is the one that's proven, and rather thoroughly.

Sorry.
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 2:48:23 AM

yeah and we also referenced modded skyrim, which, doesn't have to be at insane resolutions

and i have 3 x asus vg278h which i use in 3d.

it's necessary.
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 3:00:32 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Uh, no. Metro 2033 is one game. One game out of many. In light of how DEAD EVEN every other comparison was, I am inclined to chalk that one up as an anomaly, and in light of the evidence - you know, actual evidence - every reasonable minded person would do the same.

Look at the actual resolutions being used (insanely high), coupled with the fact that even at such insanely high resolutions (which are beyond the scope of 99% of gamers), 3GB of VRAM nets virtually one big goose egg of a performance increase over it's 1.5GB counterpart.

So in the end, I think MY POINT is the one that's proven, and rather thoroughly.

Sorry.


That's pretty fail logic... "Well that data point doesn't fit my assumption, and if true completely invalidates my argument, so I'll just assume it's an anomaly and ignore it." So yeah, your point is proven rather thoroughly, except for, you know, the couple of data points that completely invalidate it. :pfff: 

That Metro data point shows that there do exist situations right now where having only 1.5 GB of vram renders a game unplayable at maximum settings. Others exist as well. Generally, they do not exist at 1080p yet, although as has been said, if you mod a game like Skyrim enough, it can easily use 3GB of vram at a meager 1080p (it's really high res texture mods + ugrids increases + higher-than-ultra graphics settings on things like draw distance and shadows that cause such insane vram use... my skyrim regularly sits at 2.7-3.0 GB of vram usage).

Extra vram does not really help performance, but it prevents complete performance crashes that occur if you run out of vram.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 22, 2012 3:00:54 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Uh, no. Metro 2033 is one game. One game out of many. In light of how DEAD EVEN every other comparison was, I am inclined to chalk that one up as an anomaly, and in light of the evidence - you know, actual evidence - every reasonable minded person would do the same.

Look at the actual resolutions being used (insanely high), coupled with the fact that even at such insanely high resolutions (which are beyond the scope of 99% of gamers), 3GB of VRAM nets virtually one big goose egg of a performance increase over it's 1.5GB counterpart.

So in the end, I think MY POINT is the one that's proven, and rather thoroughly.

Sorry.

i thought this would never happen.....
but i agree with pc gamer
there i said it LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 3:05:22 AM

BigMack70 said:
That's pretty fail logic... "Well that data point doesn't fit my assumption, and if true completely invalidates my argument, so I'll just assume it's an anomaly and ignore it." So yeah, your point is proven rather thoroughly, except for, you know, the couple of data points that completely invalidate it. :pfff: 

That Metro data point shows that there do exist situations right now where having only 1.5 GB of vram renders a game unplayable at maximum settings. Others exist as well. Generally, they do not exist at 1080p yet, although as has been said, if you mod a game like Skyrim enough, it can easily use 3GB of vram at a meager 1080p (it's really high res texture mods + ugrids increases + higher-than-ultra graphics settings on things like draw distance and shadows that cause such insane vram use... my skyrim regularly sits at 2.7-3.0 GB of vram usage).

Extra vram does not really help performance, but it prevents complete performance crashes that occur if you run out of vram.



+1 totally agree.
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 3:09:38 AM

In general, I agree with the principle of "buy the better GPU even if it has less vram than a slightly weaker GPU with more vram"

However, I do not agree that the amount of vram on a card can simply be ignored in the decision process... that's just asking for trouble. You need to make sure you have enough vram for what you want to do. This is especially relevant if you think a dual-GPU setup is in your future, since vram does not stack.

Extreme hypothetical case: a 1 MB GTX 680 would be far less useful than a 2 GB GTS 450. Of course that's purely hypothetical, but it illustrates that you cannot operate strictly on a principle of "buy the better GPU and don't worry about vram".
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 3:52:55 AM

I'm having trouble deciding between a 1GB 560Ti and a 2GB 4870.

Any help there?

I am also having a bit of trouble deciding between the 6990 (4GB), and a dual 680SLi graphics solution (2GB).

Input?

The point it, VRAM is important...after you've considered just about everything else that is even more important.

In a race for which is fastest, let us not stop and consider size...at least not until everything else is first considered.

Gawd, people. :pfff: 
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 3:56:20 AM

I have no problems with your argument as a general starting point. I just thought it was worth pointing out that that your link above actually shows that vram CAN be crucial to a purchasing decision, at times even moreso than what GPU you want to get.

My point is simply that it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. As a generalization, I agree with you, I just think that happens to be a fairly risky generalization to make.

Also, the 6990 and 680SLI have the same amount of usable vram, so that particular example doesn't matter to a vram discussion :p 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 22, 2012 3:57:14 AM

I personally think that in 2 years time the 7970 will be faster then a gtx 680 by then i could see alot of games that will take up more then 2 gb.I think as time goes on the 7970 will gain in performance and possibly surpass it when new graphics engines are released that are vram hogs
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 4:02:16 AM

BigMack70 said:
I have no problems with your argument as a general starting point. I just thought it was worth pointing out that that your link above actually shows that vram CAN be crucial to a purchasing decision, at times even moreso than what GPU you want to get.

My point is simply that it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. As a generalization, I agree with you, I just think that happens to be a fairly risky generalization to make.

Also, the 6990 and 680SLI have the same amount of usable vram, so that particular example doesn't matter to a vram discussion :p 

OK, daddy mack.

At what point would you surmise that a weaker card would be a better option?

In what instance would you generalize a weaker card being superior to a stronger card on the basis of VRAM alone?

I'm waiting...

m
0
l
!