EVGA GTX 680 4GB vs GTX 690. HELP!

TDSmile

Honorable
Dec 14, 2012
19
0
10,510
Hello all.

Currently looking at:

CPU - Intel Core i7-3770K
Motherboard - Asus Maximus V Gene
RAM - G.SKILL Sniper Gaming Series 16GB (2 x 8GB)
GPU - EVGA GeForce GTX 680 4GB
PSU - Antec High Current Pro 850W
CPU Cooling - Thermalright True Spirit 140
Case - SilverStone FT02B
Optical Drive - SATA DVD-RW
Storage - 2TB Western Digital Caviar Black & Intel 330 Series 180 GB SSD
Sound Card - Asus Xonar DX

Now this is my first pc build and I have come at a complete halt here. I thought I was for sure going to get the 680 4gb but reviews are throwing me towards the 690. I will only be running two monitors at the most but will only be running one until the money comes back from this huge bill coming my way. I am trying to make this pc as future-proof (I guess is the correct word) as possible.

This only has come up because I thought that the the extra 2gb vram would be useful for multi monitor but reviews have been informing me that the extra is not needed unless going crazy with monitors. I also read that the 690 will run better than 2 680's for lower resolutions.

Thanks in advance to any willing helpers.
 

fudoka711

Distinguished
Also, the gtx 690 doesn't actually use 4gb of memory. It uses 2x2gb of memory while the gtx 670 and 680 have versions with full 4gb of memory - making them better for playing at higher resolutions (aka 3-monitor setups and 1440p/1600p single monitors)
 

TDSmile

Honorable
Dec 14, 2012
19
0
10,510
Well with the 690 it is still under my $2500 max but I would have to wait longer for my second monitor. My hopes is to go high end on this rig and be set for quite a while. Right now I game on a semi-crummy laptop which has served me well but I want to see the BEAUTY!!!

Also I'm only gonna use two monitors max I just want to make sure I get what will give me the best performance.
 
The ASUS TX 680 DirectCU II is a custom-PCB monster much like most all of the ASUS offerings. ASUS has their own special way of taking a standard card and sprinkling some magic on it to ensure that the card you get is nothing short of exceptional. This is not something that is surprising but also it will stay awesome for a long time as the card may be built for performance but many of the features are built to ensure it keeps on working for a long time.GTX 680 DirectCU II was born TOP, a video card generous in every respect. With high performance and the heat sink slot DirectCU II to the top of the range ASUS is set to make inroads into the hearts of hardcore overclockers thanks to a generous factory overclock and quality components designed to increase the frequency.Although not part of the series "ROG" the GTX 680 DirectCU II Top trace the line between video cards ASUS Classic those belonging to the elite end.This card can and does preform better then stock 680's it violently murders them actually.I would be all over that Asus TOP for its high factory overclock, cool temps, and really, really quiet fans,heavily modified PCB, with an efficient VRM design to produce low temperatures, improved voltage regulation circuitry, much better Chil controller , specially binned chip and voltage control and monitoring support that you won't find on most other non-reference cards.The card a straight beast!
 

TDSmile

Honorable
Dec 14, 2012
19
0
10,510


I'm still trying to stay under the $2500 max I set. That motherboard takes it to $27XX I don't even have a monitor yet.
 

mesab66

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
893
0
19,160
The OP is looking for a good level of future proofing now (as we would all like). Of course 1 or 2 x 670 is cheaper and is a popular option, however, the 690 has a number of significant advantages over an SLI setup utilising 2 separate cards. Additionally AMD's 3rd party 7990's are another option - they deliver better fps in some games in some reviews, however, AMD's dual card solution is let down by significant other issues (noise, temp, power bill).

It's horses for courses time, unfortunately. The OP does need to carefully check out a few reviews of the latter card (7990) - this will be benchmarked and reviewed in context along side the 690. These reviews will give you valuable info. Check out:-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7990_Devil_13/

One thing is certain, if you can get a 690 now you will be a very hapy man for some years.
 
If your gaming on a single 60hz 1080p screen, then a single 670 is all you will need. Getting a 690 to play on a single screen is wasting a good $500 that can be better spent elsewhere.

A 690 is no more future proof than a 670, by the time the 670 is insufficient for gaming the 690 will be 2 months behind it. And if performance does become insufficient, you can always throw another one in. Would work out cheaper in the long and short run, as by the time you would need to do so a 670 would be ~$300.
 

Judge34411

Honorable
Dec 21, 2012
4
0
10,510


Sorry hate to burst your bubble. Gaming on 2 monitors? Not going to happen, well and not look funny. Because when you are trying to shoot someone right in front of you you will have the bezels right smack in your gun sites. You have to go 1,3..... and above you need AMD/ATI

Enjoy
 

darksparten

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2012
273
0
18,810
I'd reccomend you get 2 GTX670s and instead of Z77 go with an X79 chipset, a good 250 dollar X79 board is the GA-X79-UP4 and a good processor is the i7 3930k. If you're willing to spend that much money you should distribute it evenly.

Good luck!
 


The only reason a 690 would use less power is because it is down clocked a tad and uses one HSF. It may use less power, but at the same clocks, they would produce the same heat before cooling, as they are the same chips. The difference is that with 2 separate cards, they get more cooling with each GPU getting a dedicated HSF, which is the reason for the extra power, but results in a cooler running setup, provided you give it space between the cards.
 
This question is very subjective to what you plan to do with your system display wise. If you plan to game on 3 1920x1080 monitors or lower res a single GTX 690 should be a great choice, since you won't be using more than the allocated 2gb of Vram per GPU. But if you want to run 3x @ any higher 2560x1440. Example: 7680x1440 displays you're going to need more Vram allocated to each GPU, in this case a GTX 680 4Gb SLI would be the right choice.
There really is no good legit review.I have seen giving any reason to buy 4GB cards yet imo seems pretty much is based on blanket statements or a bunch of hype.Also, games that actually need more than 2GB of VRAM tend to be GPU demanding like Skyrim with ENB mods http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660/23/ and Metro2033,ARMA II,Witcher 2 with Ubersampling,Far Cry 3, are the only ones i can think of. Pretty much the only thing that increases the need for vram is higher resolutions or extreme AA situations. EDIT- Found a review QUOTE: Conclusion

Increasing the amount of memory on board of GeForce GTX 670 and GTX 680 cards translates to obvious performance benefits only in specific unique cases, such as triple-monitor set-ups with 3240x1920 resolution and enabled antialiasing. Metro 2033: The Last Refuge and Sniper Elite V2 are the only games that need more than the standard 2 GB of graphics memory, but the contemporary High-End graphics cards are anyway too slow in these games even with 4 GB of video memory. In the rest of our games we could hardly see any difference between GeForce GTX 670s with 2 and 4 GB of memory in 3240x1920 and no difference at all in 2560x1440. So, purchasing a 4GB card wouldn't be worth the investment unless you've got a triple-monitor configuration. But if you do have one, 4GB graphics cards really make sense for 2-, 3- and 4-way SLI configurations and playing contemporary games at high resolutions. In this case, the increased amount of memory would not become the bottleneck.

As for the particular product, the EVGA GeForce GTX 670 Superclocked+ 4GB is a well-made card that follows the reference design with minor modifications such as the shape of the vent grid and the increased GPU clock rate. By the way, EVGA played it safe with the GPU, which actually turned out to have much better overclocking potential. The memory chips could have also been overclocked to 6608 MHz, for example. The product definitely deserves high scores for its good accessories, handy software tools (Precision X and OC Scanner) and 3-year warranty. Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-geforce-gtx-670-4gb_11.html



The more sensible choice is $280 Sapphire HD7950 + OC (amazing bang for the buck). If you want NV for personal reasons or PhysX/CUDA, etc. try to catch a deal on an after-market GTX670 card. For example, MSI GTX670 Power Edition with can be had for $344 after $20 MIR and $15 off. Those are very close in performance to a GTX680 minus the price premium. Newegg had $330 GTX670 Windforce 3x on sale recently. That's an excellent card. I even consider the Asus 680 Top (overpriced) the GTX 690 it's just highway robbery imo needs to come down in price two hundred or so before even considering lol.


Anyway check these out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUoxv4HWoDM&list=PL13F5266778601CBA&index=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-0ocHYl8g&list=PLFF65661B86D4458E&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOYkXrxzjY
Asus GTX 670 DirectCU II TOP - 10.0 rating (only card ever to get a 10.0)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670_Direct_Cu_II/33.html

Gigabyte Windforce GTX 670 OC - 9.8 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_670_Windforce/33.html


MSI GTX 670 Power Edition Twin Frozr IV - 9.7 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Edition/33.html




They didn't do the EVGA so...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-670-sc-review/23
EVGA SC Boost Clock is 1046 out the box...stable at 1200 Mhz
EVGA SC gets 3DMark Score of 8691 out the box and 9443 OC
Idle temp is 29C / load temp is 78C
Noise is 37 dBA Idle / 43 dBA under load

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-geforce-gtx-670-directcu-ii-top-review/23
Asus TOP Boost Clock is 1137 out the box ... stable at 1280 Mhz
Asus gets 3DMark Score of 9340 out the box and 9839 OC
Idle temp is 30C / load temp is 72C
Noise is 37 dBA Idle / 38 dBA under load

That makes the Asus 7% faster out the box than the EVGA SC, 6C cooler and almost 1/4 as loud under load (every 3 dBA is a doubling of sound level). The FTW is slightly faster than the SC, leaving the Asus model w/ just a 5% performance advantage.All these cards are solid choices and a pair of any would be much better bang for buck then a GTX 690.
ASUS GTX 670 TOP
MSI GTX 670 PE
Gigabyte 670 WindForce OC



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/56546-msi-gtx-670-power-edition-oc-review-20.html (670 PE OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55270-asus-gtx-670-directcu-ii-top-review-20.html (ASUS 670 TOP OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54705-gigabyte-gtx-670-windforce-oc-review.html (Gigabyte 670 WindForce OC)

EVGA 670 FTW!Is a good choice as well.
 

Merry Wizard

Honorable
Dec 22, 2012
8
0
10,510

 

TDSmile

Honorable
Dec 14, 2012
19
0
10,510

lol man I'm not an idiot. I'm not gonna be gaming on both monitors... The second monitor is for when I'm programming, rendering and editing.
 

Judge34411

Honorable
Dec 21, 2012
4
0
10,510


Actually I do not think you are an idiot. But you are asking the question. You are asking about 4gb GTX card because of using 2 screens. The only time you would think of that is if you are trying to use both in gaming. Not for desktop use. (Talking about vram here) As these cards are of little use in design work. Compared to the commercial cards. Sadly two completely different types of cards.

Next I have 2 GTX 680 4gb cards and 3 screens running. I now know that the 4gb cards were a waste of money. They are just now powerful enough to run what is needed to get close to needing 4gb of vram. The ability of the card is overtaxed before I could possibly add enough background graphics (add ons) to need the 4gb.

Also if I do not push these cards to the max they actually run slower fps. So it is a bit of a catch 22. Just maybe, and I mean maybe a few games just might come along that will not overtax the limit of the cards and have enough add on's to hit over the 2gb's but as I have now found out. For the next while, and this is important I don't really seeing it happen. An when it does I am sure we can buy much faster cards using less power to do a better job. An I believe that will be smarter than trying to future proof with the 4gb cards.

Oh, I am also running 120hz monitors and do run 3d (stereoscopic) from time to time, and the 2gb cards would not have made less of an effect.

Sorry if we misunderstood each other. But as you can see I am actually running what you are talking about and a little more.

So, Don't waste your money on 4gb Cards! I did, and wish I had not.

Have a great day.
 

Judge34411

Honorable
Dec 21, 2012
4
0
10,510
Oh, and if I was to do it again I would of chosen the GTX690 over 2 GTX680 2gb/4gb cards. Takes up less room. Less hassles about cooling and so on. Less junk in the box and less power used. My machine is running cool even with everything running max. But at a large cost. My machine in a quiet room can sound like a vacuum cleaner ;-)

Well not really but you get the idea.
 

revro

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2012
327
0
18,790
so the 680 is fast enough that it doesnot collect more than 2gb of vram usage even in 3 screens? did you actually tried high textures in skyrim or crysis 2? i did in skyrim and in castle draco mod managed to get 2,55gb usage on 1 1080 on my evga 660ftw sig 2 3gb card, tough fps went down 10-12fps when flying with tfc command around castle. guess the 192bit bus of 660

thank you for your insights
revro