GTX 690, or two 680's?

I'm looking into building a computer that can double as a good gaming computer.
At the moment, the only game I'd play that would require a great video card would be Battlefield 3.
I plan on playing it on all ultra settings, on a 2560 x 1600 display.
But on top of playing this, I would like whatever card(s) I decide to buy to be future-proof, for a while. So I won't have to upgrade for quite some time, to play the newer games on their highest settings.

So would 2 GTX 680's, or one GTX 690 do the job better?

Thanks
11 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Go with the GTX 690, which is the best graphic card you can have -- so the best option for a future proof card, with excellent performance!

    GeForce GTX 690 Review: Testing Nvidia's Sexiest Graphics Card http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193.html
  2. No such thing as future proofing.
  3. Dissension said:
    I'm looking into building a computer that can double as a good gaming computer.
    At the moment, the only game I'd play that would require a great video card would be Battlefield 3.
    I plan on playing it on all ultra settings, on a 2560 x 1600 display.
    But on top of playing this, I would like whatever card(s) I decide to buy to be future-proof, for a while. So I won't have to upgrade for quite some time, to play the newer games on their highest settings.

    So would 2 GTX 680's, or one GTX 690 do the job better?

    Thanks


    Gtx 690 is slightly slower than two 680's because it's downclocked, however a single 690 would be the better choice because it consumes less power and gives off less heat than two 680's
  4. BigMack70 said:
    Sadly, for really smooth 1600p gameplay, he needs a pair of cards.

    I'd say either get 670 SLI and save some money or get a 690. No point in getting 680 SLI unless you like the aesthetic of two cards... the 690 will keep your power/noise/heat issues to a minimum with basically the same performance.
    +1 except two 680 out preform a 690 but i still agree with this recommendation 100% i just ordered x2 MSI 670 PE today hoping i won't regret it because i am broke now lol.
  5. Thanks everyone for the answers.

    One thing I just can't understand is: If the 690 has a slower core clock, how can it possibly run games faster than the 680? I'm definitely missing something here.
  6. bigcyco1 said:
    +1 except two 680 out preform a 690 but i still agree with this recommendation 100% i just ordered x2 MSI 670 PE today hoping i won't regret it because i am broke now lol.


    Not really. They're almost identical. Saying that two 680s outperform a 690 is like saying a Radeon 7850 with an 880MHz GPU frequency (20MHz over reference of 860MHz) outperforms a reference 7850. It's technically true, but there's no way in hell that you'd notice a difference.
  7. Easy.... these are faster than the reference 680 and therefore significantly faster than the 690....not to mention waaay cheaper

    2 x ASUS 670 DCII

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670_Direct_Cu_II/33.html

    The TOP version was so designated when Asus was hand picking the GPU's during early production runs. As the line matured, this was deemed no longer necessary.
  8. Dissension said:
    Thanks everyone for the answers.

    One thing I just can't understand is: If the 690 has a slower core clock, how can it possibly run games faster than the 680? I'm definitely missing something here.


    Two identical GPUs with a tiny underclock are still a helluva lot faster than one of the GPUs without the tiny underclock and are almost exactly as fast as two of the GPUs without a tiny underclcok. Frequencies are not measurements of performance anyway; frequency is just one of many factors in performance.
  9. BigMack70 said:
    You mean the card that isn't available and definitely doesn't cost $420 anymore? Seriously?? Stop it. :non:


    He/she didn't say anything about the TOP being available, just that the current non-TOP is basically identical to the TOP because GK104s don't need to be as highly binned these days (presumably due to process improvements). Also, the non-TOP that he/she recommended is available all over and at least at Newegg, does in fact cost $420:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121637
  10. The non Top is not the same though i have try both cards and trust me they are different i think the reason is the Top uses specially higher binned chip.
  11. bigcyco1 said:
    The non Top is not the same though i have try both cards and trust me they are different i think the reason is the Top uses specially higher binned chip.


    JackNaylorPE claims imply that the non-TOP's binning has caught up with the TOP's, but they didn't raise the stock frequency in relation to this. IDK for sure, but re-reading JackNaylorPE's post, he/ahe might have been embellishing given that he/she claimed significant performance improvements over the 690 and that it's "waaay" cheaper, which isn't really true given that two DC2 670s are only about 20% cheaper than a 690.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Gtx Computer Graphics Product