Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 670 4GB or GTX 680 FTW?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 4, 2012 11:59:49 PM

I am debating whether to purchase an EVGA GTX 670 4GB or GTX 680 FTW. I am not short on money so the budget is not a problem at all.

I will be playing games like Crysis 2, Skyrim, Diablo III, and Shogun 2 Total War. I hope to futureproof a bit as well possibly for Crysis 3, Max Payne, etc. Also, I may consider Nvidia surround in the future with one of these cards.

All in all, I can guess that the GTX 670 would cater my memory needs better, but I'm just not sure how the cards compare when you really get down to it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
a b Î Nvidia
June 5, 2012 12:16:33 AM

The EVGA GTX 670 4GB is cheaper compared to the GTX 680 FTW, it's definitely made for resolutions higher than 1920x1080 and multi-monitor setups.
m
0
l
June 5, 2012 12:49:09 AM

fantastik250 said:
The EVGA GTX 670 4GB is cheaper compared to the GTX 680 FTW, it's definitely made for resolutions higher than 1920x1080 and multi-monitor setups.

How do the two cards compare performance wise? Also, is there a benefit that the 680 is FTW, or is that just a gimmick?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
June 5, 2012 12:58:13 AM

According to Tom's Hardware's GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX 680?

"Maybe this time will be different and we’ll see GeForce GTX 670s in sufficient quantity to satisfy the folks previously priced out of the ultra-high-end market. If that’s the case, then hell yes. GeForce GTX 670 is a phenomenal little board that blows right past the GeForce GTX 580—a card that was introduced at $500 a year and a half ago. It offers the display connectivity to contend with Eyefinity, one of AMD’s prior differentiators, and its efficiency is currently unmatched. We have every reason to recommend buying a GeForce GTX 670—even as an alternative to the GeForce GTX 680, which is marginally faster, but 25% more expensive.

Cards like EVGA’s GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Superclocked up the ante with higher base clocks, more aggressive average GPU Boost frequencies, and elevated memory data rates—in this case at a $20 premium. That’s still $60 under the cheapest Radeon HD 7970 and $80 less than the most affordable GeForce GTX 680."



"Given a GPU with roughly 88% of its CUDA cores enabled and slightly lower clock rates, we’d expect the GeForce GTX 670 to give up at least 12% of its performance compared to GeForce GTX 680. But then you start factoring in the complexities of GPU Boost and add on the fact that frame rates often don’t scale based on shader resources—particularly when an application isn’t bound by shader throughput.

Knowing all of that, it is still surprising to see our GeForce GTX 670 sample perform just 4.5% slower than our reference GeForce GTX 680—certainly less of a gap then we were told to expect. Knowing that overclocking on air is often enough to overcome a sub-5% spread, this almost negates any reason you might have had for buying a GeForce GTX 680, particularly if you were looking to play games at 1920x1080 with the eye candy cranked up."

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev...
m
0
l
June 5, 2012 11:19:43 PM

fantastik250 said:
According to Tom's Hardware's GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX 680?

"Maybe this time will be different and we’ll see GeForce GTX 670s in sufficient quantity to satisfy the folks previously priced out of the ultra-high-end market. If that’s the case, then hell yes. GeForce GTX 670 is a phenomenal little board that blows right past the GeForce GTX 580—a card that was introduced at $500 a year and a half ago. It offers the display connectivity to contend with Eyefinity, one of AMD’s prior differentiators, and its efficiency is currently unmatched. We have every reason to recommend buying a GeForce GTX 670—even as an alternative to the GeForce GTX 680, which is marginally faster, but 25% more expensive.

Cards like EVGA’s GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Superclocked up the ante with higher base clocks, more aggressive average GPU Boost frequencies, and elevated memory data rates—in this case at a $20 premium. That’s still $60 under the cheapest Radeon HD 7970 and $80 less than the most affordable GeForce GTX 680."

http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/1/336745/original/gtx%20670%20vs%20680%201920.png

"Given a GPU with roughly 88% of its CUDA cores enabled and slightly lower clock rates, we’d expect the GeForce GTX 670 to give up at least 12% of its performance compared to GeForce GTX 680. But then you start factoring in the complexities of GPU Boost and add on the fact that frame rates often don’t scale based on shader resources—particularly when an application isn’t bound by shader throughput.

Knowing all of that, it is still surprising to see our GeForce GTX 670 sample perform just 4.5% slower than our reference GeForce GTX 680—certainly less of a gap then we were told to expect. Knowing that overclocking on air is often enough to overcome a sub-5% spread, this almost negates any reason you might have had for buying a GeForce GTX 680, particularly if you were looking to play games at 1920x1080 with the eye candy cranked up."

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev...

Thank you for the answer. So to dumb it down, the GTX 680 is for the best possible performance when gaming at 1920x1080 (excluding the 690, of course) but the 4 GB GTX 670 would be better considering its cheaper, relatively the same speed as the GTX 680, and has double the VRAM?
m
0
l
June 5, 2012 11:27:17 PM

To be honest, I would say get the 670 - you could overclock it easily to match a 680 stock. As for 4 gig VRAM, that's only really for massively high resolutions (multi-monitor), but even 2GB would cover all but the biggest resolutions.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b Î Nvidia
June 5, 2012 11:56:21 PM

MoltenCore7 said:
Thank you for the answer. So to dumb it down, the GTX 680 is for the best possible performance when gaming at 1920x1080 (excluding the 690, of course) but the 4 GB GTX 670 would be better considering its cheaper, relatively the same speed as the GTX 680, and has double the VRAM?


That is correct.

As ftsartek has mentioned, if you want the bigger vram is for high resolution and multimonitor setups. It comes down to the price. 2gb is enough for most gaming needs
Share
June 6, 2012 12:00:33 AM

Best answer selected by MoltenCore7.
m
0
l
June 6, 2012 12:01:37 AM

fantastik250 said:
That is correct.

As ftsartek has mentioned, if you want the bigger vram is for high resolution and multimonitor setups. It comes down to the price. 2gb is enough for most gaming needs

I think I will go with the 670 as I plan to do some Skyrim modding and want the extra VRAM. I also might consider going with nvidia surround in the future, so that will be a plus. Thanks for your help!
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
June 6, 2012 12:56:09 AM

No problem :) 
m
0
l
!