Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 680 Choice?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 27, 2012 3:18:59 AM

Cant decide between these three cards, the money difference isnt an issue. Just wanted to ask everyone what they think! Id appreciate any input.

Choice 1
EVGA GTX 680 Classified 4GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Choice 2
ASUS GTX680 DC2 4GB (2 slot)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Choice 3
ASUS GTX680 DC2 2GB (3 slot)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

What do you think the best choice would be?

More about : gtx 680 choice

December 27, 2012 4:04:33 AM

There can be an option 4 haha. Just really wanting some advice on the best gtx680

So you really like the Gigabyte?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 27, 2012 4:05:30 AM

I personally like EVGA, I suppose the cooler aspect of it is a con but they're custom support is amazing and a friend of mine has a 680 FTW and said it doesn't get too hot on him.
Second choice would probably be the DC2 dual slot, a windforce or an MSI. I'm not a big fan of triple slot cards.
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 4:39:24 AM

The Asus DC2 cards are very well made. The EVGAs are also very good. You can't really go wrong with any of the cards. You only need 4gb (and even then you don't need it) if you're gaming at 2560x1440 or higher.
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 4:44:33 AM

I think Im leaning towards the ASUS GTX680 DC2 4GB. Thanks for the input guys
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b Ĉ ASUS
December 27, 2012 4:57:52 AM

Just throwing something out there...

First of all, 4GB of VRAM is totally pointless for anything but a 3-monitor setup. It doesn't make the card faster in any way, unless you have enough of it, and for the average gamer, they will never use the usual 2GB. (Let me again state this: a 4GB card is not faster than a 2GB card, and can sometimes be slower.)

Secondly, the 680 is only 5% faster than a 670, which is $100 less. If you get the right 670, it'll be faster than a 680 at stock clocks even before you overclock. (When overclocked, the 670 is within 2-4fps of a 680. Is that REALLY worth $100?)

I highly advice you go the option that isn't a complete waste of money.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b Ĉ ASUS
December 27, 2012 6:01:19 AM

I personally would not buy a 680 because 670 is almost same performance and $100 cheaper.However if i was to buy a 680 only two would meet my standarts http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- I would say the Lighting >> http://www.overclock.net/t/1280007/official-msi-gtx-680...
People are hitting 1300+ easily (one hit 1400 on AIR) and with voltage control coming no other 680 or any other card will even be able to touch it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- ASUS GTX 680 DirectCU II Top http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFdECF7hZIM
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 6:11:23 AM

The 670 is very close to the 680, but I would like to eventually OC the 680.

still wanting to stick with the 680 but one last thing, you and alot of other places say the 4GB vs 2GB is a waste and would only slow down a single monitor setup becasue of the bandwidth. I really doubt Im going to be doing a multi - monitor setup any time soon.

So 4GB would be a bit slower for my situation correct?
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 6:18:16 AM

It could be slower as it has in some cases proven to be, however regardless if your only using a single monitor setup it wouldn't be worth forking out the extra money
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 4:53:54 PM

It has been proven to be a small bit slower, and I know that even with skyrim running a ridiculous amount of graphics mods still works well with a 2gb card.

So my answer is, if you aren't running a multi monitor setup, then yes the 2gb would be great.
m
0
l
!