Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EVGA DUAL GeForce GTX 690 4GB VS TRIPLE EVGA GeForce GTX 680 2GB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 25, 2012 9:50:44 PM

I'm building a pc and I need the best graphics card... ever. Something that will perform the best and give the best display.

money is not an issue.

Monitor:ASUS VG278H Black LCD Monitor, 27" Full HD, 1920x1080, 0.311mm, 300cd/m², 2ms, 120Hz, VGA/DVI/HDMI, 3D Vision.

Also which monitor should I get I only want one. If there are any better monitors that will give a better display please tell me.

There was one other monitor more expensive so it seems better Here it is:NEC MultiSync PA271W-BK Black LCD Monitor, 27" IPS WQHD, 2560x1440,300cd/m²

I'm terribly experienced with this so forgive me.

BTW which monitor and graphics card will perform better on 3d and give a better display.

Ps if there is an even better graphics card out there please tell me.
a c 99 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 25, 2012 10:26:49 PM

With the Asus you're only stuck with what the manufacturer gives. 1920x1080. With the other monitor you're able to go higher resolutions. Plus make sure it is 3D capable if you want to play in 3D. A lot goes into looking into a monitor such as black levels and contrast and type of displays. The only graphics card that are deemed the fastest is 680 and 690. The 680 has a higher clock setting than the 690. But it's worth to check out Tom's Hardware and see their benchmark on the 690. Going with more than 1 graphics card has some issues such as flickering, microstuttering, etc. Currently there is no faster card than these two at the moment.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 25, 2012 10:51:00 PM

2 690s will perform better, 3 680s will perform similar but at a lower cost. 4 680s is more of a comparison to 2 690s, and are about the same price.

I would recommend three 60s and a soundblaster fatal1ty card though :) 
Related resources
May 25, 2012 10:54:11 PM

"Dual 690 VS Triple 680" ............"which monitor should I get I only want one"


JJuuBB: you did mean inexperienced and not "experienced", since any of those configurations will be just a minute/tad overpowered for any single monitor in existence.

Can you expand a bit specifically on your topic heading?

"money is not an issue." - can you give me some?
a c 643 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 25, 2012 11:13:40 PM

You need to seek balance in your system. With a single monitor, there will be a point where more GPU horsepower will have absolutely zero additional impact. Going for 3D Vision on a large, high resolution monitor, with a high-end overclocked CPU can help to make the additional GPU horsepower worthwhile.

I would begin with a single GTX 690, then consider a second for quad-GPU's... which is theoretically faster than the three GPU's in tri-SLI GTX 680's.

Quote:
We started this review with single monitor gaming in mind. The reality is that with graphics cards so powerful only 2-way SLI is a viable solution unless you really use the hottest games that are GPU limited. Once you reach a monitor resolution of 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 that's where a third card starts to make a difference, albeit too little to really justify the money.

So our recommendation is that with a single monitor setup like 1920x1080/1200 your maximum number of GTX 680 cards set up in SLI should be two. Now, if you have that nice 30" monitor with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 resolution, that's where that 3rd card could matter."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-3way-sli-...
May 26, 2012 2:01:13 PM

what about a DUAL NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 SDI I/O, 4GB GDDR3 will that be better than those 2?
a c 643 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2012 5:11:41 PM

JJuuBB said:
what about a DUAL NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 SDI I/O, 4GB GDDR3 will that be better than those 2?

That's not a gaming card, so it won't be better at playing games.
a c 99 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2012 9:00:17 PM

The quadro FX cards are professional 3D cards. It's intended use for people who use graphic intensive applications such as maya, or 3D professional applications. They are not made for gaming as matto17secs stated.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
May 26, 2012 9:30:04 PM

17seconds said:
You need to seek balance in your system. With a single monitor, there will be a point where more GPU horsepower will have absolutely zero additional impact. Going for 3D Vision on a large, high resolution monitor, with a high-end overclocked CPU can help to make the additional GPU horsepower worthwhile.

I would begin with a single GTX 690, then consider a second for quad-GPU's... which is theoretically faster than the three GPU's in tri-SLI GTX 680's.

Quote:
We started this review with single monitor gaming in mind. The reality is that with graphics cards so powerful only 2-way SLI is a viable solution unless you really use the hottest games that are GPU limited. Once you reach a monitor resolution of 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 that's where a third card starts to make a difference, albeit too little to really justify the money.

So our recommendation is that with a single monitor setup like 1920x1080/1200 your maximum number of GTX 680 cards set up in SLI should be two. Now, if you have that nice 30" monitor with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 resolution, that's where that 3rd card could matter."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-3way-sli-...


While I fully understand the idea of balance, and agree with it. I know that when using 3D Vision, a 690, or 2 680's in SLI will be utilized if playing the top end games. This is exactly what I'm using now, and I still cannot max out several games. Though I come close enough that I have no desire to go with more horsepower.

To maintain 60 FPS, which I do find pretty important, 50 FPS is a minimum for me, as nausea gets much more severe the lower I go below 60. Playing Metro 2033, I play DX11 at high without physX or DoF. Very high drops me into the 40's a lot. The Witcher 2 will also drop into the 30's at max settings, even without ubersampling. I have to turn off all forms of DoF in order to stay above 50 FPS the majority of the time, which I find good, because DoF has no place in 3D Vision. A single 680 was not enough for maxing Skyrim, but 2 will.

Anyways. I think 2 680's or a single 690 is the best way to go. If you go beyond that, noise becomes an issue for barely any improvement. However, I do believe 3 680's would be required to hit max settings all the time in 3D Vision, provided the game is capable of max settings all the time with 50+ FPS. Some games just have some settings that aren't possible.
a c 643 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2012 10:20:20 PM

In a "money is no issue" scenario, I'm feeling the GTX 690, test it, then SLI a pair of them for the highest possible performance on a 3D Vision system (vs. 3 GTX 680's). I just can't picture a day-to-day situation where you would have 4 video cards in your system for the same performance as two GTX 690's.
May 27, 2012 11:44:19 AM

Can I max out all games running on 3d or run them at 120fps with dual nvidia gtx 690?
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
May 27, 2012 1:50:24 PM

JJuuBB said:
Can I max out all games running on 3d or run them at 120fps with dual nvidia gtx 690?


You'll come close with 1. If 2 can't, then it's not possible.
April 16, 2013 6:28:36 AM

As you quotes so well , money is not a problem .
Then from when I Played on my friends pc ( 2x690's)
He got some insane frame rates .
So definitely go for the 2 690's over 3 680's
4 cores over 3
!