Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

4GB 670 or 2GB 680

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 16, 2012 8:20:55 PM

I'm trying to decide which option will present the best performance and value for what I need. I can get a 4gb superclocked 670 for slightly cheaper than a 680. Should I save some money and get the 670, or would I be leaving a lot of performance on the table. Will I even need a 4GB setup?

The max resolution I'll be running at is 16x10, single monitor, basic setup. However, I will like to record games along with live streaming so I'm thinking that the extra ram may come in handy for that, along with possibly future proofing the system. Assuming games begin to utilize more than 2gb before the 670 becomes obsolete.

This will be paired with an i7

More about : 4gb 670 2gb 680

October 16, 2012 8:31:17 PM

I'd be surprised if you manage to be bottle-necked by a 2GB model in this situation unless you're playing games such as BF3 MP maxed out with heavy MSAA at 4MP resolutions, something that wouldn't make much sense given performance would not be great either way. The 4GB cards are usually more preferable for SLI setups with very high resolutions in very memory-capacity bottle-necked games.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:35:53 PM

At 16x10 both are probably over kill so I would go for a 670@2gig and save your money but then that also goes for the i7 just by i5 unless your doing something that requires or can use quad cores
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 86 Î Nvidia
October 16, 2012 8:38:04 PM

What display resolution will you be using?

16x10 is not a resolution, it's an aspect ratio.

The following display resolutions all have an aspect ratio of 16x10:
1280 x 800
1680 x 1050
1900 x 1200
2560 x 1600

Which games?
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:46:02 PM

ikaz said:
At 16x10 both are probably over kill so I would go for a 670@2gig and save your money but then that also goes for the i7 just by i5 unless your doing something that requires or can use quad cores



Gaming? :D 

I already have the i7, my system is built I just want to upgrade my 1.5gb 580.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:49:29 PM

ko888 said:
What display resolution will you be using?

16x10 is not a resolution, it's an aspect ratio.

The following display resolutions all have an aspect ratio of 16x10:
1280 x 800
1680 x 1050
1900 x 1200
2560 x 1600

Which games?


I know, that's why I made sure to mention resolution. So I was referring to 1680x1050. I'm typing from a phone so excuse the shorthands.

thanks
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:53:14 PM

Sorry.. games are

Mechwarrior online
Medal of Honor, the one about to be released
Xcom
Red Orchestra 2
Counter Strike GO
Iracing
and some oldies
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:54:42 PM

There's really no need to go beyond a 2GB card unless you play with incredibly memory-capacity intensive mods if you only play at 1680x1050. I don;t know of any game that can be bottle-necked by 2GB even at 1080p without modding, so I doubt that 2GB could be a bottle-neck for 1680x1050, at least not with a GTX 670.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:57:01 PM

Thanks I think I'll go 2gb 670 then. So just to be sure, recording games while playing won't be memory intensive?
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 8:58:21 PM

IDK for sure about that, but I wouldn't think so. It's only recording already rendered frames, so it shouldn't be memory intensive AFAIK.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 9:03:06 PM

I have a gtx 680 2gig and I play at 6040x1200 and I rarely see ram usage over 1400MBs... at 1680x1050 you would be very hard pressed to use 2 gigs.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b Î Nvidia
October 16, 2012 9:10:04 PM

If budget is an issue, I might go with a simple 2gb GTX670 overclocked. It will perform very close to a GTX680. That is why the GTX680 prices have dropped some.

But, to answer your question, the 2gb GTX680 would be better. 2gb vs. 4gb makes very little difference. It is mostly marketing.
Read this report: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...
Share
October 16, 2012 9:14:00 PM

I have no idea how bf3 would use an insane amount of ram with any settings on a single monitor display - I think someone is just mentioning a game they have. 2g is plenty, if you're recording it has nothing to do with your graphics ram, it has to do with your hard drive and processor, and a little of your pc ram.

Even at 3x monitor setup you will not see any gains in performance, toms did an article on this recently.
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 9:15:55 PM

dkcomputer said:
I have no idea how bf3 would use an insane amount of ram with any settings on a single monitor display - I think someone is just mentioning a game they have. 2g is plenty, if you're recording it has nothing to do with your graphics ram, it has to do with your hard drive and processor, and a little of your pc ram.

Even at 3x monitor setup you will not see any gains in performance, toms did an article on this recently.


It's more situation-dependent than the Tom's article showed. BF3 and Skyrim (maybe a few others) can eat up 2GB until its a bottle-neck with the right settings and a 4MP or higher resolution.
m
0
l
October 17, 2012 1:12:46 AM

At 1680x1050, you will see just about no increase in performance from 2GB to 4GB. Massive RAM versions of video cards like the 6GB 7970 are for 2560x1600 gamers, or multiple display gamers. It's your money, so you're free to spend it however you like, but I would urge you to wait until next year to upgrade. I couldn't imagine a 1.5GB GTX 580 giving you poor framerates at 1680x1050 in any game. I'm currently using a weaker card (660), weaker CPU (i3-3220), and a res of 1920x1080 and I get about 45fps in BF3. I couldn't imagine your setup getting anything less than 60. If you really want a performance boost, get some high powered case fans, put them near the GPU, and OC it. But, I would certainly urge you to wait until next year, it'll be a much worthy $450 investment.
m
0
l
October 17, 2012 1:28:05 AM

seanpull said:
At 1680x1050, you will see just about no increase in performance from 2GB to 4GB. Massive RAM versions of video cards like the 6GB 7970 are for 2560x1600 gamers, or multiple display gamers. It's your money, so you're free to spend it however you like, but I would urge you to wait until next year to upgrade. I couldn't imagine a 1.5GB GTX 580 giving you poor framerates at 1680x1050 in any game. I'm currently using a weaker card (660), weaker CPU (i3-3220), and a res of 1920x1080 and I get about 45fps in BF3. I couldn't imagine your setup getting anything less than 60. If you really want a performance boost, get some high powered case fans, put them near the GPU, and OC it. But, I would certainly urge you to wait until next year, it'll be a much worthy $450 investment.


Oh, that's an excellent point. A GTX 580 shouldn't have any trouble at all right now and isn't really worth upgrading for OP right now.
m
0
l
Anonymous
October 17, 2012 1:35:36 AM

With that low a res I wouldnt go with either card. Overkill. Stick with the lower end 650/660 sub $300 cards. Leave the 680 cards and 4gb cards to us that game at 2560 x 1600 and higher.

m
0
l
October 17, 2012 1:37:21 AM

Anonymous said:
With that low a res I wouldnt go with either card. Overkill. Stick with the lower end 650/660 sub $300 cards. Leave the 680 cards and 4gb cards to us that game at 2560 x 1600 and higher.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/Soldier36/DSC00905.jpg


No, it's not really overkill. Simply using heavier MSAA and such make up for the lower resolution (not perfectly, but quite well).
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
October 17, 2012 2:36:59 AM

I pretty much agree with the others except personally i think it's not wise to upgrade yet if you insist on upgrading a 670/680 is a must because a 580 is still considered a decent card to this day a 660/660 ti wouldn't be a upgrade more like a trade grade lol i suggest one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
October 17, 2012 2:53:08 AM

IMO At that resolution you don't need a 670.

Also, recording is based on drive speed.
m
0
l
October 29, 2012 2:04:53 AM

Best answer selected by Tactix1.
m
0
l
!