Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 690. Worth it? Value analysis

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 4, 2012 7:01:40 PM

I am planning on upgrading my graphics card. Looking at HD 4870x2 and GTX 295 performance today, it's one of the best high-end graphics card investment. Could the same be said about GTX 690's future value?

Here's dual-gpu quick facts from the past ~4 years.
(Model - release date, launch price - equivalent gpus, price today)

HD 4870x2 - Aug 2008, $500 - Radeon 6970, 7850, GTX 480, GTX 570 ($200-250) ***
GTX 295 - Jan 2009, $500 - Same as ***
HD 5970 - Nov 2009, $599 - Radeon 7870, 7950 ($325-375)
GTX 480 - Mar 2010, $500 - Same as ***
HD 6990 - Mar 2011, $699 - GTX 680 ($500)
GTX 590 - Mar 2011, $699 - GTX 680 ($500)
GTX 690 - May 2012, $1000 - ??

Tom's Graphics Hierarchy Chart
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

It looks like the HD 4870x2 and GTX 295 have great value. I read some forums on these two card and it's funny how the comments are similar to GTX 690 today :lol:  (ie overpriced, no way I'm going to spend $$, cost is twice). Fast forward 3.5 years later, I'd say these two cards are definitely worth it and will still play many games in high settings until next year or so. $500 3.5 years ago = $200 card today. That's about $100 depreciation value per year.

The newer dual-gpus seem meh or is it too early to judge? Both HD 6990 and GTX 590 already has a $200 depreciation in one year. But this may be due to the huge leap in performance on the new generation gpus (unlike GTX 400 and 500 series, no huge gain maybe because they use the same 40nm tech).

My theory is that newer gpu performance gain is not linear, but there's a cycle where there's a big upgrade then flattens a little bit much like in cpus (think of 1st gen Core i's to Sandy Bridge, then not much gain on Ivy Bridge). Hence it's best to upgrade during those performance 'spikes', which may be now for graphics cards.

Question now is, will GTX 690 be worth buying? What will be its performance value 3 years from now? $400? $600?

More about : gtx 690 worth analysis

a b U Graphics card
July 4, 2012 7:15:24 PM

If money is not an issue i'd get the 690. performance is just out of control can't say anything it is everything for future also.
a c 91 U Graphics card
July 4, 2012 7:54:03 PM

I'm not sure if that's the best way to look at a card's value... even if it's worth say $500 3 years down the road. you can get a 680 now to satisfy all of your single screen needs now, and another one say 2 years down the road that will match the 690's performance. in this scenario, you could've sold the 680 for maybe $200, and achieve similar performance 3 years later with $800 instead of 690. not to mention if something went wrong with the 690 you would need to RMA, whereas the more often you change cards, the less likely a card will reach the end of its life

at the end of the day, follow the golden rule in GPU shopping: figure out what your need, buy the best you can afford. if you don't need a 690 today to drive 3 monitors or some crazy 3D, don't buy it
Related resources
July 5, 2012 3:06:02 AM

No,Buy 2 680's...You will be better off plus the 690 is way downclocked due to heat and power consumption...You would get more performance with two 680's considering thats all a 690 is.But downclocked alot
a c 91 U Graphics card
July 5, 2012 3:22:27 AM

EchoOne said:
No,Buy 2 680's...You will be better off plus the 690 is way downclocked due to heat and power consumption...You would get more performance with two 680's considering thats all a 690 is.But downclocked alot


I agree with your conclusion. however, the 690 is not downclocked a lot from a 680... check tom's review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-ben...

ok, there's a noticable difference in base clock, but boost clock has only a 39mhz difference. plus toms was able to overclock it past the stock clock of a 680... I wouldn't call that downclocked by a lot
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2012 4:24:36 AM

EchoOne said:
No,Buy 2 680's...You will be better off plus the 690 is way downclocked due to heat and power consumption...You would get more performance with two 680's considering thats all a 690 is.But downclocked alot


I wouldn't even do that. Buy three 670s that are factory overclocked and run three-way SLI. That way you also eliminate the majority of micro-stuttering that all two-card crossfire/SLI setups suffer from.
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2012 4:33:40 AM

Quote:
Unless hes running 3 screens TRI 670 is overkill


Never said it wasn't overkill but we're more or less talking about having a setup that is future proof for the cost, right? In that case it's pretty much tri-SLI 670s.
March 28, 2013 7:52:18 PM

Tri 670s is not overkill at anything higher than 1920x1200. Two factory overclocked 680s are not enough for a game like Crysis 3, if you want more than 60FPS with MSAA x4 or more. Do the 670s come in 4GB models? If not, then you're not future proof at all considering 2GB is not enough for 2560x1440 gaming or more. I guess you could turn down AA, but then why even spend more than $500 on graphics if you're not going for the best experience?

If you want something that is future proof and money is not an issue, then pick up 2 Titans. They're just enough to max anything on 2560x1440 with AA all the way up and at least 60FPS. The Titan is a new card, so the drivers are only going to make them better in time. You can always upgrade to 3 or even 4 Titans down the road and you'll be good for the next few years in terms of continuing to completely max everything out at adequate FPS (which is 60 or more for me).
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 28, 2013 9:59:51 PM

s3anister said:
EchoOne said:
No,Buy 2 680's...You will be better off plus the 690 is way downclocked due to heat and power consumption...You would get more performance with two 680's considering thats all a 690 is.But downclocked alot


I wouldn't even do that. Buy three 670s that are factory overclocked and run three-way SLI. That way you also eliminate the majority of micro-stuttering that all two-card crossfire/SLI setups suffer from.

Mind showing anything backing up this claim? I've only seen one article on this a couple years back, and it only tested this with crossfire, which was having very poor results, but SLI was not having such poor results, and 3-way SLI was never tested.

Fast forward to yesterday:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-bench...
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Ratin...
http://techreport.com/review/24553/inside-the-second-wi...

And appears that SLI is doing pretty good in 2-way configurations, though Crossfire still has major issues.
!