Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

EVGA GTX 680 4GB vs GTX 690 for my system

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • Gtx
  • RAM
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 19, 2012 1:03:30 PM

Guys,

I'm building a new system, it will have i7 3930k CPU, 32 GB of RAM (8 x 4), a fast SSD, and I will use this on 2560 x 1600 30" monitor (only 1 monitor so far, but I might add 2 small ones on each side in the future). My main usage for this computer in games will be FSX, then BF3. I also do some video and picture editing, not at a professional level though, just as a hobby.

I'm a bit confused about which of these cards to get. 690 apparently is actually 2 GB of RAM each PCB, so it looks like its less RAM. It also does not have HDMI out (I will be connecting my PC to my TV for the times I need to use it for HTPC).

Money is not an issue, I just don't believe the more expensive is the better for my case, sounds like 680 is better because of having 4GB of vRAM which is important for 30" displays.

More about : evga gtx 680 4gb gtx 690 system

a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 1:28:33 PM

With a single 2560x 1600 screen 2GB of VRAM will be enough. And the 690 performance is better than the 680 so for that case the 690 would be my choice.

But, when you add 3 screens 7680 x 1600 resolution, the memory will be really at extreme usage, the 2GB of VRAM will work, but you will probably need to lower some settings like Antialiasing and sometimes Textures, which will lower the memory usage making 2GB acceptable even for that resolution.

now the point is, A single 680 with 4GB will not be bottlenecked by the memory, but the performance isn't so good as the 690, and I don't think that a 680 alone will run so easy on that resolution, probably you will need to go with 2x 680 4gb if you are really a very demanding gamer and require maximum performance and maximum AA, otherwise I think I would go with the 690 since the performance is better, you will just need to use more FXAA instead of MSAA.

Basically I see it that way:

1st Option : 2x GTX 680 4GB
2nd Option : GTX 690
3rd Option : Single GTX 680 4GB
Score
0
October 19, 2012 1:49:20 PM

I agree with the above post, unless you intend to SLI 2 680, 690 is a better option. However with SLI other issues become relevant, so I would prefer to have one 690.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 1:58:24 PM

XXStavrosXX said:
I agree with the above post, unless you intend to SLI 2 680, 690 is a better option. However with SLI other issues become relevant, so I would prefer to have one 690.


690 is already (SLIed) since there are 2 GPUS, the issues will be the same as 2x680 probably.

the 690 advantages are that they require less space (easy for quad-sli) and they consume less energy than 2x 680, but the performance should be better with 2x 680 2gb, and if you go with 2x680 4gb (8gb total) the memory will not bottleneck the resolution size.

but yes, 2x 680 2gb would be worst than a single 690 4gb (2gb each gpu)
Score
0
October 19, 2012 2:30:49 PM

I think if I add any extra 30" panels (1 or 2), I'm better off with 2 x 680s no? My biggest concern with 690, and this might sound funny to some people, is the lack of HDMI port. I don't think the converter it comes with (DVI to HDMI) carries audio and I'm going to have to have a complex setup. I have a TV that's in another room and I have a 40 ft long HDMI cable that runs between my PC and my TV. I use my TV and XBMC all the time and it would be impossible for me to find a 40ft long audio cable and change my setup.

I also heard that these dual PCB cards sometimes get complications with certain games. With SLI, you can easily disable a card, with this, you cannot really turn it off. I also think for the same price, buying 2 GTX 680s is better. If the 690 was say $700, then yea, it would be bargain. But I can buy 2 evga 680 GTX FTW for $1,050. The GTX 690 costs the same. With today's cases and cooling solutions in the case, I don't think having 2 cards is a problem.

Also, the monitors I will buy are all 60 Hz. I don't think there is ever a 2560x1600 monitor that is 120hz that is affordable. Considering all the games will run at 60fps at that resolution, can someone explain how 690 is any better, I don't think there is a game that 680 won't be able to run at 60 fps at maxed out settings with the CPU and SSD and RAM I am buying.

Again, the money is not an issue, I just don't want to buy the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. I don't want to sound like I am justifying a 680, I am just trying to explain my situation so that everyone can better answer.
Score
0
October 19, 2012 4:05:46 PM

I would say either 7970 GHZ or get the 680 4GB and eventually add a second card.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 4:32:45 PM

derstig said:
I think if I add any extra 30" panels (1 or 2), I'm better off with 2 x 680s no? My biggest concern with 690, and this might sound funny to some people, is the lack of HDMI port. I don't think the converter it comes with (DVI to HDMI) carries audio and I'm going to have to have a complex setup. I have a TV that's in another room and I have a 40 ft long HDMI cable that runs between my PC and my TV. I use my TV and XBMC all the time and it would be impossible for me to find a 40ft long audio cable and change my setup.


HDMI? does it support 2560 x1600? if i am not mistaken only DUAL LINK DVI or ACTIVE DISPLAY PORT can handle this resolution.

And also, yes i've tested with a 660ti the DVI to HDMI converter carries the sound too, so that would work, but is the resolution i'm concearned about.

EDIT: meaning that you will probably need to send the audio by other cables, because HDMI will not handle native 2560x1600

derstig said:

I also heard that these dual PCB cards sometimes get complications with certain games. With SLI, you can easily disable a card, with this, you cannot really turn it off. I also think for the same price, buying 2 GTX 680s is better. If the 690 was say $700, then yea, it would be bargain. But I can buy 2 evga 680 GTX FTW for $1,050. The GTX 690 costs the same. With today's cases and cooling solutions in the case, I don't think having 2 cards is a problem.


Yes the 2x 680 4gb is the way if you have a good mobo and enough PSU, the 690 is more like if you want to go QUAD SLI or if you have limited space.

derstig said:

Also, the monitors I will buy are all 60 Hz. I don't think there is ever a 2560x1600 monitor that is 120hz that is affordable. Considering all the games will run at 60fps at that resolution, can someone explain how 690 is any better, I don't think there is a game that 680 won't be able to run at 60 fps at maxed out settings with the CPU and SSD and RAM I am buying.


690 performance is almost 2x 680, and yes there are games that don't balance the graphical effect, and you can get less than 60 FPS with a single 680 depending on the settings you are using (i have a 680 too).

Like i said before, 3 monitors at that res with a single 680 you will run into some lag probably on max settings in some games (ignoring the memory bottleneck) so if you really want to run at max settings 2x 680 4gb is the way to go.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 4:34:46 PM

You are going to need a 690 or 2 GTX 680's to get good performance for games like BF3 at that high resolution. You have the right idea with the 4GB of Vram but when you have a card that has Vram but doesn't have the power it needs to push the chip far enough to use that amount of vram... it becomes a bottleneck for your card. the GTX 690 doesn't run into as much micro stutter as a 2x 680 setup BUT the performance of two seperate cards vs a "dual GPU" card. A DUAL GPU's performance determine the SLI chip on the card.. But the GPU its self is what determines performance. When your running 1 single monitor, most usually the 2GB of vram is plenty. When running multiple displays. You need 4Gb of vram.

Now. here is the Answer. You only option is 2x GTX 680's. Because Vram doesn't stack in the Process of SLI then the 690 will only give you 2GB even though the card says 4Gb the card is Dual GPU so the card is in SLI on a Single PCB. Where as with 2 single cards the monitors you run on each card will use only the Vram on that card.. Verus a single card 690 you'd run all the monitors on 1 card and the vram wouldn't share as much per monitor.

Does this make sense to you? let me know what you don't understand so i can explain.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 4:38:35 PM

Rockdpm said:
You are going to need a 690 or 2 GTX 680's to get good performance for games like BF3 at that high resolution. You have the right idea with the 4GB of Vram but when you have a card that has Vram but doesn't have the power it needs to push the chip far enough to use that amount of vram... it becomes a bottleneck for your card. the GTX 690 doesn't run into as much micro stutter as a 2x 680 setup BUT the performance of two seperate cards vs a "dual GPU" card. A DUAL GPU's performance determine the SLI chip on the card.. But the GPU its self is what determines performance. When your running 1 single monitor, most usually the 2GB of vram is plenty. When running multiple displays. You need 4Gb of vram.

Now. here is the Answer. You only option is 2x GTX 680's. Because Vram doesn't stack in the Process of SLI then the 690 will only give you 2GB even though the card says 4Gb the card is Dual GPU so the card is in SLI on a Single PCB. Where as with 2 single cards the monitors you run on each card will use only the Vram on that card.. Verus a single card 690 you'd run all the monitors on 1 card and the vram wouldn't share as much per monitor.

Does this make sense to you? let me know what you don't understand so i can explain.


You forgot to mention 2 X 680, 4GB each.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 4:53:05 PM

babernet_1 said:
You forgot to mention 2 X 680, 4GB each.

Right, thank you for pointing that out. I did forget to mention you want the 4GB 680's both 4Gb's in SLI not the 2Gb models because Vram doesn't stack.
Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:00:56 PM

Thanks for your post. I will use HDMI only to connect my PC to my TV, which is in another room. My main monitors at 2560 x 1600 will connect via regular DVI cables. So based on what you are saying, if I connect my TV to my 690 using HDMI to DVI converter, I can get both sound and video?

ricardois said:
HDMI? does it support 2560 x1600? if i am not mistaken only DUAL LINK DVI or ACTIVE DISPLAY PORT can handle this resolution.

And also, yes i've tested with a 660ti the DVI to HDMI converter carries the sound too, so that would work, but is the resolution i'm concearned about.

EDIT: meaning that you will probably need to send the audio by other cables, because HDMI will not handle native 2560x1600



Yes the 2x 680 4gb is the way if you have a good mobo and enough PSU, the 690 is more like if you want to go QUAD SLI or if you have limited space.



690 performance is almost 2x 680, and yes there are games that don't balance the graphical effect, and you can get less than 60 FPS with a single 680 depending on the settings you are using (i have a 680 too).

Like i said before, 3 monitors at that res with a single 680 you will run into some lag probably on max settings in some games (ignoring the memory bottleneck) so if you really want to run at max settings 2x 680 4gb is the way to go.

Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:04:57 PM

Rockdpm said:
You are going to need a 690 or 2 GTX 680's to get good performance for games like BF3 at that high resolution. You have the right idea with the 4GB of Vram but when you have a card that has Vram but doesn't have the power it needs to push the chip far enough to use that amount of vram... it becomes a bottleneck for your card. the GTX 690 doesn't run into as much micro stutter as a 2x 680 setup BUT the performance of two seperate cards vs a "dual GPU" card. A DUAL GPU's performance determine the SLI chip on the card.. But the GPU its self is what determines performance. When your running 1 single monitor, most usually the 2GB of vram is plenty. When running multiple displays. You need 4Gb of vram.

Now. here is the Answer. You only option is 2x GTX 680's. Because Vram doesn't stack in the Process of SLI then the 690 will only give you 2GB even though the card says 4Gb the card is Dual GPU so the card is in SLI on a Single PCB. Where as with 2 single cards the monitors you run on each card will use only the Vram on that card.. Verus a single card 690 you'd run all the monitors on 1 card and the vram wouldn't share as much per monitor.

Does this make sense to you? let me know what you don't understand so i can explain.


So what you are saying is, for anyone looking to do massive resolutions like 30" x 2 (or 30" x 3), the 680 in SLI is a way to go. Because the 690 has only 2 GB vram available per monitor, even though the card says 4 GB. So in my case, having the 680 in SLI not only will have the performance of a 690, but it will also have 2 x vRAM of 690.

So then why do people bother with these dual PCB cards to begin with? Just space and heat? I don't get it. These 680s are so quiet compared to the 2xx or 4xx series cards, and with today's PSUs and big cases, space is a non-issue. Am I missing something here?
Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:08:45 PM

derstig said:
I will use this on 2560 x 1600 30" monitor (only 1 monitor so far, but I might add 2 small ones on each side in the future).

If you want to game in surround (with three monitors) you should use identical monitors. So adding 2 "small ones" will not at all be ideal for gaming. So unless you want to buy 2 more 2560x1600 30" beasts, it sounds like you will be gaming on one screen for the near future. Forget the 680 entirely, it's overpriced and get a 670 4gb. Then if you choose to add 2 additional gigantic monitors, you can add a 2nd gtx 670 4gb for SLI. If you really want to overspend for the 680 4gb, that's fine, but it gives very little additional performance for the money.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:12:56 PM

Yes to the first part but also statement you said was a bit off. A 690 only has "2GB" of vram to use in general because the two Gk104's onboard the 690 are in "SLI" so when two GPU's are in SLI the vram they carry witht hem do not stack. So you get the performance of two 680's out the 690 but only 1 of them gives you the Vram.

Also the 2x 680's 4GB's, you will only get 4Gb of Vram because the cards are in "SLI". and right the 690 is a card for "Look at me i just spent 1000$ on this monster and looks cool. thats about it. And Yes Kepler is a very much efficient architecture. I very much hope to see an improvement with the 700 series. But I already know some things about Maxwell (NVIDIA's next architecture in 2014) that most people don't know.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:14:42 PM

larkspur said:
If you want to game in surround (with three monitors) you should use identical monitors. So adding 2 "small ones" will not at all be ideal for gaming. So unless you want to buy 2 more 2560x1600 30" beasts, it sounds like you will be gaming on one screen for the near future. Forget the 680 entirely, it's overpriced and get a 670 4gb. Then if you choose to add 2 additional gigantic monitors, you can add a 2nd gtx 670 4gb for SLI. If you really want to overspend for the 680 4gb, that's fine, but it gives very little additional performance for the money.

^This. While the 680 is a awesome card it comes down to the acronym *80 that everyone drools about like the *90. the 670 4Gb uses the basic same GK104 as the 680 just a slightly cut down version but same Amount of Vram and same memory bus makes it a smart choice.
Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:22:06 PM

I can only suggest this, try the 680 4gb see how it goes and simply hold out for the big K next year and sell the 680 while it is still worth a lot.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:32:45 PM

The main advantage of the 690 is SPACE. You get nearly the performance of two 680's in only one slot. This way, without some exotic mega board, you can get the power of quad 680's in only two slots. The problem with the 690 is that it is de clocked a bit, runs at 900MHz rather than 1050MHz or faster that single 680's can run at.

As for the 670 vs 680 debate, just go for a 680. The 670 is usually a defective die that they blocked off the bad part and sell it as a 670. Brilliant marketing and all. Apparently 680's can overclock better for this reason. If you will be running 30 inch monitors, believe me, you need all the graphics power you can get.

I'd recommend this beast:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

GIGABYTE GV-N680OC-4GD GeForce GTX 680 4GB

The triple fans mean it will run cooler and quieter than just a single or dual fan setup.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:40:32 PM

spentshells said:
I can only suggest this, try the 680 4gb see how it goes and simply hold out for the big K next year and sell the 680 while it is still worth a lot.


Sounds like good adivce but . . .

First you will want to wait for the custom boards to come out with better cooling solutions and that are overclocked. Then AMD will come out with their 8970's or whatever, then they will be overclocked, then Nvidia will come out . . .

It never ends. Thankfully.

If you have the money, go for it now. But if you do have a three 30 inch panel setup, you may indeed need Nvidia's next generation board in SLI to keep it happy.

Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:42:09 PM

babernet_1 said:
The main advantage of the 690 is SPACE. You get nearly the performance of two 680's in only one slot. This way, without some exotic mega board, you can get the power of quad 680's in only two slots. The problem with the 690 is that it is de clocked a bit, runs at 900MHz rather than 1050MHz or faster that single 680's can run at.

As for the 670 vs 680 debate, just go for a 680. The 670 is usually a defective die that they blocked off the bad part and sell it as a 670. Brilliant marketing and all. Apparently 680's can overclock better for this reason. If you will be running 30 inch monitors, believe me, you need all the graphics power you can get.

I'd recommend this beast:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

GIGABYTE GV-N680OC-4GD GeForce GTX 680 4GB

The triple fans mean it will run cooler and quieter than just a single or dual fan setup.

No.... :pfff: 
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:47:02 PM

Rockdpm said:
No.... :pfff: 


Yes :sol: 

It's up to the poster to do his own research and make his final decision. I hope he is checking up on all of what I and others have said.





Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:53:04 PM

I have a single 30" panel at 2560 x 1600. The Dell one and it's not cheap. There is a pretty large price jump to go to 30.

I game with a 670 with 2GB of VRAM and totally satisfied with the performance. VRAM is not an issue for 1 card, though I bet it would be for more than one.

I would get a single 680 / 670 with 4GB, or a 7970. only upon getting an additional montor would 2 or 3 way sli be needed....



Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 5:53:06 PM

Well let me just say this... the 670 is NOT a defective die. the GTX 670 Super clocked 4Gb is the defective card. Besides ANY card/model/brand can have a defective chip. So that point is sortta irrelevant. And its not all about SPACE with the 690 because most people that buy a 690 have enough to do 2 way any ways unless they are running a micro ATX rig which would still sport a 690 granted the PCI-e slots are x8 x8. So some of what you said is true. but just saying get this MONSTER BEATS MEGA CARD cause it has 3 fans on it doesn't say why I should buy it.. Because a GTX 680 Classified or a GTX 680 lightning can cool just as cool and OC just as good.
Score
0
October 19, 2012 5:54:22 PM

I'm quite confused now. Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms as to why in SLI mode half of vRAM is wasted? Or is it wasted? So why is GTX 690 advertised as 4 GB instead of 2 GB? And when I have 2 x 680s of 4 GB each, I'm effectively only able to use 4 GB of vRAM? This is crazy.

I still haven't made up my mind about what display to use. I really really want a 30" monitor badly though. I have been using my 27" monitor @ 1920 x 1200 for so many years now, I need a higher resolution. I know how good 2560 x 1600 looks, and I have always wanted one. Maybe I'll just use 1 monitor and never expand it or maybe I'll get one of those 1600 x 1200 and use them vertically and have 4950 x 1600 setup.

I also don't understand the comments about a better SLI board requirement to be able to effectively have 680s in SLI. What does that mean?
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 6:04:58 PM

derstig said:
I'm quite confused now. Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms as to why in SLI mode half of vRAM is wasted? Or is it wasted? So why is GTX 690 advertised as 4 GB instead of 2 GB? And when I have 2 x 680s of 4 GB each, I'm effectively only able to use 4 GB of vRAM? This is crazy.

I still haven't made up my mind about what display to use. I really really want a 30" monitor badly though. I have been using my 27" monitor @ 1920 x 1200 for so many years now, I need a higher resolution. I know how good 2560 x 1600 looks, and I have always wanted one. Maybe I'll just use 1 monitor and never expand it or maybe I'll get one of those 1600 x 1200 and use them vertically and have 4950 x 1600 setup.

I also don't understand the comments about a better SLI board requirement to be able to effectively have 680s in SLI. What does that mean?


Two boards in SLI are sort of like a master/slave setup. One board holds the graphic frames in its memory. The slave card simply renders a frame independently or part of the frame the master is working on and transfers the data to the master. So the slave card never has more than one frame in its memory at a time, so the memory is sort of wasted in the slave card. And no, I don't think you can use a 4GB master card and a 2GB slave card. Well, I've never heard of it being done. Let someone else do it and report on it.

If you do settle for a single 30 inch monitor, a 2GB 670 will do. But a 4GB 680 will leave you posed for expanding to more monitors if you do decide to jump.

Also, so a search on EBAY for "perfect pixel" monitors. You can get a 30 inch 2560 by 1600 monitor for about $800, no dead pixels.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 6:10:12 PM

derstig said:
I'm quite confused now. Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms as to why in SLI mode half of vRAM is wasted? Or is it wasted? So why is GTX 690 advertised as 4 GB instead of 2 GB? And when I have 2 x 680s of 4 GB each, I'm effectively only able to use 4 GB of vRAM? This is crazy.

I still haven't made up my mind about what display to use. I really really want a 30" monitor badly though. I have been using my 27" monitor @ 1920 x 1200 for so many years now, I need a higher resolution. I know how good 2560 x 1600 looks, and I have always wanted one. Maybe I'll just use 1 monitor and never expand it or maybe I'll get one of those 1600 x 1200 and use them vertically and have 4950 x 1600 setup.

I also don't understand the comments about a better SLI board requirement to be able to effectively have 680s in SLI. What does that mean?

Your getting a 3930K, EVERY 2011 board supports ATLEAST 2 way SLI so ignore the comments about your motherboard... and what the deal is with Vram and SLI is it Doesn't stack. What i mean by that is you can't take a single monitor and plug it into one card and get 4Gb of vram if both cards are 2GB. just like you can't take a 690 and plug it up to a single monitor and get 4Gb of vram because the chips on board the 690 are in SLI.

Now if you had two 680's 2Gb or 4Gb's the monitor that is plugged up to card 1 would get a 2Gb or 4Gb of memory that goes to that monitor. and the 2nd monitor plugged up to the 2nd card below it would get the vram from the 2nd card in SLI. but vram doesn't "thread" i guess is a easy way to put it through the process of SLI. Why do they advertise the 690 to have 4Gb of vram? well gee idk i guess to make it sound ultra so more people will dump a grand on a graphics card.. But back to what i was saying if you had a 3rd monitor plugged into either one of the 2 cards in SLI.. then one of the cards would have to share its vram between the two monitors.. So you can either get 2 680's 4Gb's. or get 2 670 4Gb's (FTW) and get a 3rd later on down the road..

If your only going to run one monitor right now, then a GTX 670 or GTX 670 will be fine. But if your going to get more monitors not now but latter then get a 4Gb just in case.. And PS: all cards have a HDMI out on them including the 7970. Also don't get a 4Gb card and a 2Gb card because they will not SLI properly.. Idc what people say about coolbits its the worst POS software i heard of trying to pair different cards together..
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 6:23:57 PM

Honestly i can't say I would wan't 7970's in Xfire nor a 7990 devil 13. Why? because I don't like Radeon Drivers. I used radeon twice and the first time was back when it was ATI and not AMD, the second time I had a Radeon and the drivers were annoying and confusing to install..
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 6:29:03 PM

bawchicawawa said:
Go with crossfire 7970s.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_devi...


So glad you REPEATED this link. Keep in mind that the new 4GB 680's will fare much better in the hi rez arena than the link's 2GB 680's. Note also that 680's draw considerably less power than 7970's. And that different games will favor different cards.
Score
0
October 19, 2012 6:39:22 PM

so the 7970 is better than GTX 680?
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 6:43:52 PM

derstig said:
so the 7970 is better than GTX 680?

Only in a AMD fan boys eyes yes.. I mean we can sit here and say the 7970 GHZ edition Super ultimate ultra clocked beats the 680 all day every day But not one of those people will say the 680 Overclocks beat shte 7970 GHZ's... So for multi monitors yes the 7970 does better with single card But.. if your going to do SLi later on with multiple monitors then the 670/680 4Gb is way to go. if your going to do 1 screen then it turns into personal preference but frame for frame at stock the 680 wins
Score
0
October 19, 2012 6:43:53 PM

My 2c:

The drivers for AMD have been significantly improved over the past year, and installing drivers is definitely as easy as clicking 'next' and 'finish'. I wouldn't rule out the 7990 because of that.

Multi-monitor setups would benefit from MORE vram. Period. So definitely consider builds with more than 3GB effective vram (Dual setup or single card).

If you are a person who is running multi 30" monitor with beasts of a GPU, I doubt an extra $20 on your electricity bill over a year will make a difference for you ;) 

Really, it comes down to either CFX 7970/7990/680 4GB/SLI 680 4GB.

As others have said before, the 690 4GB is 2+2GB, meaning only effective 2GB vram.

Cheers
Score
0
October 19, 2012 6:57:38 PM

bawchicawawa said:
Go with crossfire 7970s.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_devi...

Amen to that. Everyone knows Xfire is much better than the NVIDIA version. If it was my choice I'd Xfire 2 7970's and lets face it it is plenty enough power, OK the SLi 680 is a bit more powerful but at the end of the day is 60fps OK for you or can you tell the difference if you got 70fps I'd definitely go for 7970 xfire.
Sorry just my opinion. :) 
Score
0
October 19, 2012 7:07:16 PM

Then add in what happens if your GTX 690 breaks?


But honestly I have both a EVGA GTX 680 FTW SLI set up and a Sapphire Radeon 7970 GHZ crossfire set up.


They both perform similarly to each other. Depends on the games you play and what you want to do with the cards.

Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
October 19, 2012 7:20:15 PM

derstig said:
Thanks for your post. I will use HDMI only to connect my PC to my TV, which is in another room. My main monitors at 2560 x 1600 will connect via regular DVI cables. So based on what you are saying, if I connect my TV to my 690 using HDMI to DVI converter, I can get both sound and video?


To use 2560 x1600 you will need DUAL LINK DVI cables, and not just SINGLE LINK DVI (just making sure you know that).

About the Sound:

I did tested this with a 660 ti and i know it worked, using a DVI to HDMI converted, i was getting sound on the television. but i did not tested this on my 680 or a 690, but probably yes...
Score
0
October 19, 2012 7:26:26 PM

ricardois said:
To use 2560 x1600 you will need DUAL LINK DVI cables, and not just SINGLE LINK DVI (just making sure you know that).

About the Sound:

I did tested this with a 660 ti and i know it worked, using a DVI to HDMI converted, i was getting sound on the television. but i did not tested this on my 680 or a 690, but probably yes...

And it will depend on what television you have, check this answer:
http://superuser.com/questions/381290/is-there-any-dvi-...


I actually did not know that. I will make sure I get the right cable. Thanks.
Score
0
January 14, 2013 12:11:54 PM

derstig said:
I think if I add any extra 30" panels (1 or 2), I'm better off with 2 x 680s no? My biggest concern with 690, and this might sound funny to some people, is the lack of HDMI port. I don't think the converter it comes with (DVI to HDMI) carries audio and I'm going to have to have a complex setup. I have a TV that's in another room and I have a 40 ft long HDMI cable that runs between my PC and my TV. I use my TV and XBMC all the time and it would be impossible for me to find a 40ft long audio cable and change my setup.

I also heard that these dual PCB cards sometimes get complications with certain games. With SLI, you can easily disable a card, with this, you cannot really turn it off. I also think for the same price, buying 2 GTX 680s is better. If the 690 was say $700, then yea, it would be bargain. But I can buy 2 evga 680 GTX FTW for $1,050. The GTX 690 costs the same. With today's cases and cooling solutions in the case, I don't think having 2 cards is a problem.

Also, the monitors I will buy are all 60 Hz. I don't think there is ever a 2560x1600 monitor that is 120hz that is affordable. Considering all the games will run at 60fps at that resolution, can someone explain how 690 is any better, I don't think there is a game that 680 won't be able to run at 60 fps at maxed out settings with the CPU and SSD and RAM I am buying.

Again, the money is not an issue, I just don't want to buy the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. I don't want to sound like I am justifying a 680, I am just trying to explain my situation so that everyone can better answer.



sound works by using this adapter on the miniDP-to-HDMI.
http://www.accellcables.com/products/DisplayPort/DP/mdp...
Just checked it
Score
0
!