Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 690, or two 680's?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 28, 2012 2:16:57 AM

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

More about : gtx 690 680

a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 2:31:49 AM

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-ben...
a c 109 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 2:56:33 AM

No such thing as future proofing.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 2:57:24 AM

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
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 3:23:40 AM

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.
September 28, 2012 3:19:16 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 3:30:04 PM

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.
a c 212 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 3:30:36 PM

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...

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 3:31:23 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 3:34:42 PM

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=N82E168...
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 8:00:08 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 8:15:26 PM

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.
!