Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4gb gtx 680? Or 690...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 21, 2013 1:22:18 PM

Hello all, I am selling my 6970 xfire setup because I cannot stand the microstudder and poor amd driver support any longer. I've read extensively on the gtx 680- 690, so my question is this: what would be more future proof, 2-4gb gtx 680s in sli, or a 690? I do plan on triple monitor 1080p gaming in the near future..

Current setup:

2600k @ 4.8ghz
800w psu
16gb ripjaws 2133mhz
Ocz vertex 3
2- seagate 1tb hdd's raid0
Asus p8z68 pro/gen 3
Recon Fatality SB
Acer 24" 120hz
Corsair H100

Thx in advance for any advice

More about : 4gb gtx 680 690

a b U Graphics card
January 21, 2013 1:28:33 PM

Well your most "Future proof" option would be the GTX 680 4gb... Although you would need to overclock the memory on them to take advantage of that amount of vram. If you only have 2 video card slots and want to leave an upgrade path, you could get GTX 690... then SLI it later on down the road. It all depends on how you are viewing "future proof".
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 1:33:51 PM

A pair of 4GB 680s is technically more "future proof" but I think buying things because they are "future proof" is silly as there is no such thing. Buy what you need/want now.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 21, 2013 3:59:35 PM

By future I mean 1-2 years. I don't want to have to buy another card in 6 months.
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 4:03:32 PM

Is also like to take advantage of my 120hz monitor so 80-120fps CONSISTENTLY would be ideal
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 21, 2013 4:17:13 PM

Well you would be fine with a GTX 690, SLI GTX 680 2gb(will be plenty for 1080p) or 4gb... If you are going with 3 120Hz monitors your best solution is 2 GTX 680 4gb.. but don't expect to keep 80-120fps in all games without lowering some settings...
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 4:20:22 PM

If you're looking to push 120 Hz out on a triple monitor setup, you'll have to turn down so many settings that the extra vram isn't worth it at all and you should just stick to 2GB cards or a 690.
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 7:14:47 PM

I realize 80-120fps will not be possible with maxed out settings on triple monitor yes lol. Well I'm using a 6970oc for the time being (sold the other already) so maybe I can hold out for a little bit.
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 8:20:56 PM

Maybe this will help me... Does anyone who has a 680sli setup experience any kind of microstudder?? I realize some is unavoidable, but my 6970 xfire setup would feel so bad at times that 80fps in games "felt" like 30fps
m
0
l
January 21, 2013 8:52:36 PM

All dual-GPU setups have more microstutter than a single-GPU setup. Anecdotal evidence is that the 6xx series doesn't typically have enough microstutter to be noticeable, though.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 22, 2013 3:20:10 PM

I can't remember what site, but I remember seeing a review where they stated that the GTX 690 (a dual GPU card) experienced roughly the same "micro-stuttering" as a single AMD 7970. This is due to the issue AMD is having with Frame latency (They are currently working on this and have "fixed" it in 3 games so far).
m
0
l
January 22, 2013 4:30:44 PM

Hmm, does anybody have any real world fps numbers for planetside 2 with the 690? I've looked everywhere, and all I see are "guesstimates"
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 12:59:21 AM

drmcstroks said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Titan-Nvidia-GK110-gpu...

$900 for 85% of the power of a 690? no thank you. i dont care if the 690 uses double the wattage, id rather pay the extra $90 lol

That's 1 GPU, and it will be faster then the GTX690 for all workstation apps.
m
0
l
January 23, 2013 10:10:06 AM

srafig4 said:
if the 4K monitor becomes popular in next few years, the 680 with more memory is your best choice for gaming.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-g...


No, if 4k becomes popular in the next few years, you will need to buy a new graphics card. A 4GB 680 is a silly purchase if the justification is to be "4k ready". That article also at several point shows that the 7970 would be the better option for 4k anyways.

Also... "ATI XFIRE" setups only "suck so bad" if you're beyond horrible at troubleshooting.
m
0
l
January 23, 2013 1:12:24 PM

BigMack70 said:
No, if 4k becomes popular in the next few years, you will need to buy a new graphics card. A 4GB 680 is a silly purchase if the justification is to be "4k ready". That article also at several point shows that the 7970 would be the better option for 4k anyways.

Also... "ATI XFIRE" setups only "suck so bad" if you're beyond horrible at troubleshooting.



That article was comparing a 2gb version of the 680, which they said the VRAM was 100% maxed. Of course the 7970 ran better as it has the extra 1gb of VRAM. They should have tested the 4gb 680 also.
m
0
l
January 23, 2013 1:55:10 PM

The 7970 ran better because it has a wider memory bus, not more vram. Also, neither card can play ultra settings where the extra vram is required.

4GB 680s are a waste of money.
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 2:30:29 PM

its not bad future proofing games will use 3gigs of vram soon.

m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 9:02:09 PM

4 gigs isnt fully utilized now thats what he means, but in the future will be handy drm
m
0
l
January 23, 2013 9:04:11 PM

iceclock said:
4 gigs isnt fully utilized now thats what he means, but in the future will be handy drm



i understand 4gb isnt fully utilized atm, however they are already up to at least 3gb... i just fail to understand his reasoning for saying 4gb is worthless? especially if you can get one for the same price as a 2gb card..
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 9:06:41 PM

its not worthless, and its not the same price, its a bit more, u can always make a gpu work harder but hes saying standard game modes, not modded games with hd packs.

2gigs are quite good but i find for a bit more 4gigs is a better value and more future proof.

m
0
l
January 23, 2013 9:08:00 PM

drmcstroks said:
can you please explain to me why 4gb is a waste of money when people playing skyrim with hd texture mods are already using 3gb+...?


Because the amount of vram you can fill up does not equal the amount of vram you need for the best possible performance. Modded skyrim will fill up a lot more vram than is actually necessary for good performance. A 670 2GB will handle modded skyrim just as well as a 7970 3GB.

EVERY test/review I have seen of 4GB Kepler cards has had the EXACT same conclusion: there is zero benefit to having 4GB 670s or 680s over their 2GB counterparts. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Might as well light your money on fire.
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 9:08:03 PM

yup

m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 10:20:37 PM

depends of what brand and make, some have a higher premium than others.

m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 11:02:43 PM

well there is a difference in long term but for games of today and a while no, if u can afford it whynot, but if not a regular 2gig will do the trick.

m
0
l
January 23, 2013 11:37:11 PM

There *might* be a difference long term if you assume that 680 SLI has the power to play games maxed out "long term" at triple screen resolution. I highly, highly doubt that, since you already have to turn settings like MSAA down at 3-screen resolution on 680 SLI. Of course, nobody knows.
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 23, 2013 11:40:20 PM

the future is unknown -_-
m
0
l
January 24, 2013 12:02:02 AM

BigMack70 said:
More like a $60 difference per card but whatever. It's your money. Don't let me stop you from throwing it at shiny box stickers that don't mean anything.



$529.99-$514.99=$15. where do you get $60 difference?? This is probably why your advice is useless.
m
0
l
January 24, 2013 12:03:54 AM

Nope - This is where you fail to click a very obvious link.

:pfff: 

I love when people get on here, ask for advice, then ignore it and do whatever they want anyways.

Have fun burning your money!
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 12:07:05 AM

useless, this guy mack been around longer than u and me, doubt hes useless.

what ur saying doesnt compute, we can both agree 2 gigs is fine for now, but if u can afford the 4 gig version whynot. its just simply not required tho.

we could call it a premium bonus.

m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 12:20:48 AM

still just a statistic that doesnt count as valid reason or proof tho. just a poll.

m
0
l
January 24, 2013 12:23:08 AM

As long as you understand that there is currently zero benefit to the 4GB cards, and there's a good chance there never will be a meaningful benefit to the 4GB cards, go ahead.
m
0
l
January 24, 2013 1:08:26 AM

BigMack70 said:
Nope - This is where you fail to click a very obvious link.

:pfff: 

I love when people get on here, ask for advice, then ignore it and do whatever they want anyways.

Have fun burning your money!



Are you serious right now? What link?? I linked 2 cards to you. One is 2gb, the other is 4gb, and there is a $15 difference between them assuming you know simple math. And if you bothered to read the OP, my question was asking which option would be a little more future proof.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 1:22:11 AM

Rember when people said 1gb is more than enough?. people are saying the same thing about 2gb now. But thats not true. 4k is already eating all the 2gb up. either get the 7970 crossfire or 680 4gb sli. 2gb will be incompetent not too soon imo. games like crysis 3 battlefield 4 etc will probally eat it all up
m
0
l
January 24, 2013 1:30:46 AM

I'm sort of confused. Whenever I look at benchmarks, the GTX 690 has much better FPS than a GTX 680 4gb or 2gb model. Only the sli version of those models outperform the 690.

So why is everyone saying the 690 is not worth buying? If someone has the monitor for 120hz, then isn't it worth it to get a card that pushes those high FPS in games? I have a GTX 680 2gb on a 2560x1080 monitor, and even that dips below 60fps on some games. And if you have an even higher resolution and are downsampling with your settings maxed out.....

Then again, I might be completely out my league here.

My only issue with the 690 is the memory. I really do worry about games using more than 2gb in the future, and its such an expensive card to invest in. Plus, for close to the same price you can buy two 680 4gb and sli.

So while I do see some downsides to the card, I don't know why it's 100% written off. Unless it really does give a weaker performance than a single GTX 680? And in that case, what's with all the charts/benchmarks showing it kick so much butt?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 1:31:58 AM

alisoncat said:
I'm sort of confused. Whenever I look at benchmarks, the GTX 690 has much better FPS than a GTX 680 4gb or 2gb model. Only the sli version of those models outperform the 690.

So why is everyone saying the 690 is not worth buying? If someone has the monitor for 120hz, then isn't it worth it to get a card that pushes those high FPS in games? I have a GTX 680 2gb on a 2560x1080 monitor, and even that dips below 60fps on some games. And if you have an even higher resolution and are downsampling.

Then again, I might be completely out my league here.


The op is asking either SLI 680 4GB/2GB OR 690 not a single 680 vs 690 lol
m
0
l
January 24, 2013 1:35:22 AM

stantheman123 said:
The op is asking either SLI 680 4GB/2GB OR 690 not a single 680 vs 690 lol


I actually knew this, but was kind of going off on my own tangent. I've seen a lot of people saying the 690 isn't worth it. But I think for some people, it could totally be worth it.

In terms of OP, it makes more sense to just sli the 4gb models, definitely. Doesn't the 690 run cooler than the 4gb sli though? I'm personally waiting for the Titan, because I'm more of a single card fan myself. While it's only 85% of the 690 performance, it also has 6gb of Ram (I think? Or maybe I misread that.) But I'm pretty sure it will at least have 4gb.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 1:42:38 AM

alisoncat said:
I actually knew this, but was kind of going off on my own tangent. I've seen a lot of people saying the 690 isn't worth it. But I think for some people, it could totally be worth it.

In terms of OP, it makes more sense to just sli the 4gb models, definitely. Doesn't the 690 run cooler than the 4gb sli though? I'm personally waiting for the Titan, because I'm more of a single card fan myself. While it's only 85% of the 690 performance, it also has 6gb of Ram (I think? Or maybe I misread that.) But I'm pretty sure it will at least have 4gb.



Yep i agree. ive had 2 dual gpu cards. a 5970 and a 590. Im sticking with single gpus from now on there quieter and less heat and less driver problems
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 1:54:45 AM

i dunno, sli-ing or xfire has it advantages but is reserved for people with more money, and bi-gpus run hotter and perform less than the same card x2

m
0
l
January 24, 2013 2:57:08 AM

alisoncat said:
I actually knew this, but was kind of going off on my own tangent. I've seen a lot of people saying the 690 isn't worth it. But I think for some people, it could totally be worth it.

In terms of OP, it makes more sense to just sli the 4gb models, definitely. Doesn't the 690 run cooler than the 4gb sli though? I'm personally waiting for the Titan, because I'm more of a single card fan myself. While it's only 85% of the 690 performance, it also has 6gb of Ram (I think? Or maybe I misread that.) But I'm pretty sure it will at least have 4gb.


Titan no thank you. $899 for 85% of the performance of a 690? Just buy the 690 for $90 more lol
m
0
l
a c 82 U Graphics card
January 24, 2013 3:01:35 AM

i think in ur case go for the 4gig, i agree its worth the extra 40$ if that.

m
0
l
!