Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

670 3-way SLI vs 680SLI

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 19, 2012 8:31:08 AM

Right now i have a GTX 680 and another 680 to SLI on special order that has been taking forever (2 weeks so far). With the new 670 released with close to the same performance as the 680 it makes it a great deal. I could sell my 680 get 670 tri-SLI for $200 more that 680SLI with much higher rated performance. Only thing is I would need to upgrade my mobo also because my Asus z68 pro has only 3 PCI-E 2.0 slots @ 8x, 8x, 4x. So is the 670 x3 upgrade worth it? And anyone that says its overkill for anything you throw at it i just got 3 Asus VG278H 3d 120hz monitors for "3D Surround" so I need the power.

Also what ive heard is 670 3-way SLI is not working with current drivers. Anybody heard differently or seen any promising benchmarks? Thanks guys.

Edit: Also the 2GB Vram is a limiting factor. But the benchmarks Ive seen with 4gb versions have not been beneficial for 5760x1080 or 3d? Is this due to the Memory Bit Width: 256 Bit of the 600 series?

More about : 670 sli 680sli

May 19, 2012 8:43:48 AM

adding another gtx 680 would be an ultimate deal.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 19, 2012 9:27:01 AM

I agree 2 gtx 680's.Even if they get decent driver support for gtx 670 3 way sli it could still not be worth it.In the end it depends on how it will scale.I thought about getting a 3rd gtx 480 until i seen benchmarks and it simply wasnt worth it.
Score
0
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
May 19, 2012 10:34:55 AM

Stick to the 680 SLI, you won't want more perfomance than that, its plenty, going 3 cards is too much trouble and not worth it.
The heat , the power and the noise from 3 cards is too much.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 10:41:32 AM

gtx 680 in sli for 3 monitor is more then enough and the gtx 680 is not an hotter card in sli also.:) 
Score
0
May 19, 2012 10:44:49 AM

sunnk said:
gtx 680 in sli for 3 monitor is more then enough and the gtx 680 is not an hotter card in sli also.:) 


Im trying to run 3 monitors in 3d. "3d Surround"
Score
0
May 19, 2012 11:05:08 AM

Swolern said:
Im trying to run 3 monitors in 3d. "3d Surround"

then sure 680 sli would be the best bet!! :) 
Score
0
May 19, 2012 11:25:33 AM

sunnk said:
gtx 680sli with 3 monitors in bf3.:) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ai-NeJw0Gs

and for 3d vision also its enough.:) 


His avg was 65-75fps so 3d drops framerate in half. So thats avg @ 35fps, and thats means lows would be in 20s, and thats unplayable for me.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 11:26:27 AM

list your specs?
Score
0
May 19, 2012 11:59:06 AM

Score
0
May 19, 2012 1:07:26 PM

xtreme5 said:
list your specs?


I5 2500k @4.3 / Asus z68 Pro / Ripjaws 8GB 1600 CL8 / EVGA GTX 680 / M4 256gb SSD / Spinpoint 2TB HDD/ Corsair 1050w
Score
0

Best solution

a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 19, 2012 1:26:42 PM

You may find that in 3D surround, you are still going to have to turn down a lot of settings, even with GTX 680's in SLI. I just got the GTX 680's for a single 3D Vision monitor, and I still cannot max everything (though it is good enough). Metro 2033 runs in DX11 at "high" with tessellation on, "very high" drops me FPS into the 40's. The Witcher 2 mostly works great on Ultra, minus all DoF and ubersampling options.

I haven't gotten around to testing everything yet, but almost everything I had required some lowered settings with a single 680 in 3D Vision on a single monitor. Two 680's should make most near maxed on a single 3D Vision monitor. 3x 3D Vision monitors is going to require tons of power or lowered settings. The good news is 3D Vision still looks great with lowered settings.
Share
May 19, 2012 5:29:46 PM

good specs, then get another gtx 680. You'll be notice a massive increase in performance.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 5:57:51 PM

Swolern said:
His avg was 65-75fps so 3d drops framerate in half. So thats avg @ 35fps, and thats means lows would be in 20s, and thats unplayable for me.

wrong! There is no difference between 2500k vs 2600k, particularly in gaming, 2500k is alot better choice for gaming both chips uses same technology
in video the guy uses 2600k, and you've 2500k i assume you'll be better if he getting 3fps then you'll be getting 2fps only 1 or 2 fps difference.

And if you still don't believe than here is the bench:
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 19, 2012 6:21:10 PM

xtreme5 said:
wrong! There is no difference between 2500k vs 2600k, particularly in gaming, 2500k is alot better choice for gaming both chips uses same technology
in video the guy uses 2600k, and you've 2500k i assume you'll be better if he getting 3fps then you'll be getting 2fps only 1 or 2 fps difference.

And if you still don't believe than here is the bench:
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287


He did not say that an i5 is half the FPS of an i7. You keep failing to see he is talking about 3D Vision. He is saying that those benchmarks without 3D Vision running, will be halved once you enable 3D Vision.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 6:23:34 PM

they should be similar even.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 6:43:47 PM

xtreme5 said:
they should be similar even.

How would they be similar? 3D requires rendering the same scene twice, but from slightly different aspects. It would be almost exactly half of the FPS for the same power.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 6:51:58 PM

oh, sorry i have not much experience with 3d, i thought OP's were just saying 2600k get 65fps where as 2500k 35, thats my mistake, BTW what is the difference between no 3d vs with 3d?
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 19, 2012 7:13:40 PM

xtreme5 said:
oh, sorry i have not much experience with 3d, i thought OP's were just saying 2600k get 65fps where as 2500k 35, thats my mistake, BTW what is the difference between no 3d vs with 3d?


As you are aware, people see with binocular vision. That means your left eye sees from about 4 inches to the left of your right eye. As a result, you get slightly different images seen from both eyes. This process gives us good depth perception, especially with things closer to us.

3D vision creates images in the same way we'd normally see things in real life, by giving an image to the left eye that is as if viewed from 4 inches to the left of the images given to the right eye. They do this by having you wear glasses that can black out one eye with liquid crystal lenses, so that each eye only sees every other frame, which are rendered from the perspective of each eyes location.

Basically, when using 3D vision, you no longer see a flat screen, everything looks like real life.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 7:28:35 PM

thats very interesting, but one thing more how it can affect the fps?
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 19, 2012 7:47:48 PM

xtreme5 said:
thats very interesting, but one thing more how it can affect the fps?


Because every frame requires two images to be rendered and sent to each eye. That means 60FPS requires 120 images.
Score
0
May 19, 2012 7:50:36 PM

thanks alot!
Score
0
May 20, 2012 5:50:51 AM

Finally Found IT! Here is some benchmarks with the gtx 690 and 3D Surround. This should be about the same performance as 680SLI.

Wow it looks like Nvidia has been hard at work with the 3d vision drivers. Some game like Batman and Skyrim framerates only drop a little (and not the usual 1/2 framerate) when in "3d surround" when compared to Surround in 2d. Looks promising! :D 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...

Now if i can ever get another dam 680 at a decent price!!! My special order from Provantage.com still never shipped :fou:  . Those things are still hard as hell to find.........
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 20, 2012 6:04:47 AM

I would like to add that I find that 3D Vision is even more important to achieve high FPS than in 2D. What I mean by that is 40 FPS in 3D gives me bad nausea and others headaches. While I normally get a fair bit of nausea with out 3D at 40 FPS, it's worse with 3D Vision. I find it pretty important to stay above 50 FPS, although that is me, not everyone is the same.
Score
0
May 20, 2012 6:29:30 AM

Swolern said:
Finally Found IT! Here is some benchmarks with the gtx 690 and 3D Surround. This should be about the same performance as 680SLI.

Wow it looks like Nvidia has been hard at work with the 3d vision drivers. Some game like Batman and Skyrim framerates only drop a little (and not the usual 1/2 framerate) when in "3d surround" when compared to Surround in 2d. Looks promising! :D 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...

Now if i can ever get another dam 680 at a decent price!!! My special order from Provantage.com still never shipped :fou:  . Those things are still hard as hell to find.........


first you have given there you want sli gtx 680 and then you are giving gtx 690 review?btw two gtx 680 in sli are like gtx 690.:) 
Score
0
May 20, 2012 6:30:51 AM

for 3d surround in 3d vision i will go with 3 way gtx 670 for better fps and all that.:) 
Score
0
May 20, 2012 6:52:42 AM

sunnk said:
first you have given there you want sli gtx 680 and then you are giving gtx 690 review?btw two gtx 680 in sli are like gtx 690.:) 


Thats what i said in my first sentence? I dont understand. Are you asking me something?
Score
0
May 20, 2012 6:57:54 AM

yes i asked first you have given there you want sli gtx 680 and then why you are giving gtx 690 review?
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:00:04 AM

bystander said:
I would like to add that I find that 3D Vision is even more important to achieve high FPS than in 2D. What I mean by that is 40 FPS in 3D gives me bad nausea and others headaches. While I normally get a fair bit of nausea with out 3D at 40 FPS, it's worse with 3D Vision. I find it pretty important to stay above 50 FPS, although that is me, not everyone is the same.


Do you have 3d Vision 1? I just got the Asus monitors with 3d vision 2 and wow what a difference. The 3d picture is much brighter and sharper, and even my room around the monitors dont darken like the vision 1 glasses which looks like putting sunglasses on. Ghosting is drastically reduced, but not perfect yet. I have a top of the line Panasonic VT30 3dtv and i can say the new Asus with vision 2 3d is much better. It really is amazing, so much depth and clarity, it really brings these games to life.

Oh and there feels like there is NO EYESTRAIN! Even in games with 3d depth turned all the way up. Now that is huge, because other 3d displays that is especially strong would hurts my eyes.
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:01:46 AM

sunnk said:
yes i asked first you have given there you want sli gtx 680 and then why you are giving gtx 690 review?


I cant find any 680SLI 3d Surround benchmarks. The 690 will give similar results to 680sli.
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:06:02 AM

ok then fine.:) 

which games do you like to play in 3d vision surround?
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:14:41 AM

As many as possible :D 
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:17:53 AM

what fps always you need at avg?
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:33:16 AM

sunnk said:
what fps always you need at avg?


Depends on the game. But 40fps avg is a good rule of thumb. It looks like some games i will have to adjust some settings to be able to get the high framerate that i want.
Score
0
May 20, 2012 7:56:16 AM

mostly u will get 30fps with it in avg so if its good enough for you then go for it other wise if you want till 50fps then gtx 670 3 way.:) 
Score
0
May 20, 2012 8:11:24 AM

sunnk said:
mostly u will get 30fps with it in avg so if its good enough for you then go for it other wise if you want till 50fps then gtx 670 3 way.:) 


I just don't think 3-way 670SLI will scale that well, especially with its 2gb vram limitations. How do you come up with a 75% performance increase from 2-680s to 3-670s? Have you seen any benchmarks? That much FPS increase sounds more like 680 quad sli. And only 680s because 670s don't support quad sli.

I've looked everywhere for 670 tri-sli benchmarks, none to be found.....
Score
0
May 20, 2012 8:47:32 AM

yes it doesnt seem that well scaling propably waste of money better you go with second gtx 680 you will get 30 fps mostly or more i think goodluck.:) 
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
May 20, 2012 1:32:00 PM

Swolern said:
Do you have 3d Vision 1? I just got the Asus monitors with 3d vision 2 and wow what a difference. The 3d picture is much brighter and sharper, and even my room around the monitors dont darken like the vision 1 glasses which looks like putting sunglasses on. Ghosting is drastically reduced, but not perfect yet. I have a top of the line Panasonic VT30 3dtv and i can say the new Asus with vision 2 3d is much better. It really is amazing, so much depth and clarity, it really brings these games to life.

Oh and there feels like there is NO EYESTRAIN! Even in games with 3d depth turned all the way up. Now that is huge, because other 3d displays that is especially strong would hurts my eyes.


I have 3d Vision 1, however, the monitor I have did attempt some 3D Vision 2 ideas. Rather than lightboost, the monitor, when you switch to 3D Vision, automatically maxes out the brightness, which is at 30% for normal use and 100% in 3D. I have never used 3D Vision 2 to know how much of a difference it is. I also have the older glasses, which I've thought about upgrading, but I can't seem to find a good review that compares the use of the old and new glasses with the older technology.

I haven't had any eyestrain and very mild nausea (the same level as I get in 2D at 60 FPS) as long as I keep 60 FPS. If I let the FPS get low on me, I get nausea, but this may be a problem of latency, and it seems worsen faster in 3D as I go below 60 FPS.

I'm going to wait a bit before I upgrade my monitor. It still works well, and the ASUS, while it seems very good, the reviews I read do show it has a few quirks that need to be worked out (just how it enters and exists 3D). If I were to buy today, I'd get the ASUS 3D Vision 2 monitor, but this one is still pretty good.
Score
0
May 21, 2012 4:43:50 AM

I was also thinking surely i will need 4gb of VRAM with 5760x1080 in 3d. But i looked at the few benchmarks out there of any 680 or 670 4gb card and the only one i saw was the Palit 4gb version. It only benched up to 2560x1600 but did not look promising, it actually scored lower than the 2gb version. WTF, im confused. How is twice the vram actually get lower performance......... http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb...

Anyones opinion on the extra VRAM? See anymore 680/670 4gb benchmarks with at least 5760x1080.
Score
0
May 21, 2012 4:49:53 AM

Im getting a extremely itchy trigger finger to buy another 680 off Ebay because i have these amazing 3 monitors and can only run 5760x1080 in 2d or 1920x1080 in 3d due to cable connections. Monitors are DVI-D & hdmi. I would need a display port to dvi-d adapter $130 just to run "3d surround" Another 680 would add 2 more DVI-d so i would be good. I just want to make the best possible desicion for the best performance while i got some extra cash on me.

I did find some 670 4gb OC for $489 new but i want some benchmark proof before i take the plunge.
Score
0
May 31, 2012 5:31:38 AM

Best answer selected by Swolern.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
May 31, 2012 11:17:45 AM

This topic has been closed by Maziar
Score
0
!