Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EVGA GTX 680 4GB vs GTX 690. HELP!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 14, 2012 4:03:54 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 4:06:37 AM

The 690 its a monster and generally would be cheap than 2 680.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 4:25:22 AM

I would start off with one 670 4gb then buy another if your not happy with it.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 4:27:17 AM

690 if you can afford it, would be the best choice. In the future you can even SLI two, essentially making it like 4 680's. Crazy poop right there.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 4:42:11 AM

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)
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 4:43:02 AM

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.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 5:15:35 AM

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!
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 6:22:42 AM

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-devi...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7990_D...

One thing is certain, if you can get a 690 now you will be a very hapy man for some years.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 8:23:10 AM

TDSmile said:
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.
Buy two 670's then :)  690 has no advantages
m
0
l
a c 123 U Graphics card
December 14, 2012 9:56:39 AM

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.
m
0
l
December 18, 2012 2:55:01 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Buy two 670's then :)  690 has no advantages

From my research I was reading the the 690 uses less power and produces less heat than 2 670s in sli.
m
0
l
December 18, 2012 1:53:36 PM

buy 2 670 with 4gb ram just make sure they have high boost clock 1050-1100+ MHz
690 is too limited as each core can have only 2gb of vram

best
revro
m
0
l
December 22, 2012 2:27:29 AM

TDSmile said:
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.


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
m
0
l
December 22, 2012 2:48:14 AM

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!
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 22, 2012 3:51:15 AM

TDSmile said:
From my research I was reading the the 690 uses less power and produces less heat than 2 670s in sli.


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.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
December 22, 2012 3:11:43 PM

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/te... 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-...



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=PL13F52...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-0ocHYl8g&list=PLFF656...

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...

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


MSI GTX 670 Power Edition Twin Frozr IV - 9.7 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Ed...




They didn't do the EVGA so...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-670-sc-r...
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-dire...
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-r... (670 PE OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r... (ASUS 670 TOP OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r... (Gigabyte 670 WindForce OC)

EVGA 670 FTW!Is a good choice as well.
m
0
l
December 23, 2012 12:01:18 AM

bigcyco1 said:
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/te... 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-...



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=PL13F52...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-0ocHYl8g&list=PLFF656...

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...

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


MSI GTX 670 Power Edition Twin Frozr IV - 9.7 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Ed...




They didn't do the EVGA so...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-670-sc-r...
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-dire...
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-r... (670 PE OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r... (ASUS 670 TOP OC)



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r... (Gigabyte 670 WindForce OC)

EVGA 670 FTW!Is a good choice as well.

m
0
l
December 23, 2012 12:02:57 AM

How about the new ASUS GTX 680 4gb 2 slotter? Looks like a good card but not overclocked like the Classified.
m
0
l
January 4, 2013 4:20:48 PM

Judge34411 said:
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

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.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 2:52:32 PM

TDSmile said:
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.


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.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 3:00:48 PM

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.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 6:08:01 PM

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
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 6:54:43 PM

The only time 2GB is not enough is in the case of mods or at high enough settings, on 3 monitors, that it wouldn't have been playable anyways.

If you look at mods, yes, you can run out of vram in a meaningful way.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 7:34:30 PM

revro said:
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



Well that is my point. By the time I really will need the 4gb of vram my card will start to choke, and trust me, with less than 3 monitors you should not need it. I would think the GTX 670 will do what you want unless your are going for a 27" monitor 2560 x 1440, Then you might want a little more. But even then???

Maybe I am not explaining it right. But I know that 2GB vram is adequate.

I have learnt my lesson about trying to future proof with the cards I purchased. Cards btw are Galaxy GTX 680 GC 4gb and I am running them OC even though they are just about the fastest cards out of the box. CPU is 3770K OC a little (4.2)

Good luck.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 8:08:42 PM

bystander said:
The only time 2GB is not enough is in the case of mods or at high enough settings, on 3 monitors, that it wouldn't have been playable anyways.

If you look at mods, yes, you can run out of vram in a meaningful way.


What mods?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 8:28:37 PM

Merry Wizard said:
What mods?


Game mods, like Skyrim texture packs, not delivered by the game developers. It was in response to this:

Quote:
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
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 12:57:02 AM

bystander said:
Game mods, like Skyrim texture packs, not delivered by the game developers. It was in response to this:

Quote:
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



I am about to purchase a new card myself, and for the reasons mentioned here, I lean toward a 680 (or maybe 670) with 4 gb vram. Worried about some decrease in fps, but the new ASUS 680 DC2 4gb should be easily overclockable and only takes up 2 slots. With a 690, you only get 2 gb vram per gpu.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:32:30 AM

Unless you plan to play games with lots of mods, 2GB is enough, otherwise, 4GB may be worth something.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 1:44:40 AM

bystander said:
Unless you plan to play games with lots of mods, 2GB is enough, otherwise, 4GB may be worth something.


Also needed for 3 monitors at 5760 X 1200. But do you sacrifice much in fps?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 2:19:37 AM

Merry Wizard said:
Also needed for 3 monitors at 5760 X 1200. But do you sacrifice much in fps?

Not according to all the benchmarks. The only time you lose FPS as a result of 2gb, even at that resolution, is when you turn settings so high that even with 4GB, you can't play it smooth.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:35:33 AM

bystander said:
Not according to all the benchmarks. The only time you lose FPS as a result of 2gb, even at that resolution, is when you turn settings so high that even with 4GB, you can't play it smooth.



What I meant was, is the 4 gb card slower than the 2 gb card? I suppose it depends on the overclock. The ASUS card comes with a reference clock out of the box, but they claim a decent overclock and the ROG people seem to like the card.
m
0
l
a c 123 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 2:39:16 AM

The amount of VRAM doesnt impact performance until you run out of it, and 2GB is fairly hard to max out at 1080p.

The ASUS fanboys/employees like an ASUS product. Might want to look up a less biased source, though I suspect its a good card anyway.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:56:22 AM

Thanks bystander and manofchalk.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 6:25:28 AM

770 is not far away, and it should have 3gb and 384 bit bus. so waiting might be wise by now

best
revro
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 11:27:07 PM

revro said:
770 is not far away, and it should have 3gb and 384 bit bus. so waiting might be wise by now

best
revro


Good point. But 700 series might not be much of an upgrade. Maxwell probably not coming out until 2014. I do need a new card now, but it makes sense not to spend too much now with better cards on the horizon.
m
0
l
January 7, 2013 8:58:18 AM

yes 6 months ago i would say go for 670, but now we are 3-5 months away and only new game in next 3 months is crysis 3, tough who knows maybe they will bundle it with 8970 like they did with far cry 3 :) 

best
revro
m
0
l
!