How future proof are a pair of GTX690s?

[pentiumradeon]

Running on an overclocked i5 3570k processor and a decent motherboard, how future proof are a pair of GTX690s running in quad SLI? I am relatively new to the building aspect of computers, so even though I know the benchmarks and such things that are readily available for reading online, I still am not so sure about these things in a manner that more seasoned people around here might understand. My question is how far into the future can I expect those two dual gpu cards to bring me ultra graphics settings in a good enough framerate (>60fps)

 

[i8myhippo]

You say a "pair" of 690's running in "quad SLI"? I guess, technically, a 690 is two cards put together, but do you mean 2 690's, or 4 690's?

To answer your question, they will future proof well, but understand that this is flawed logic: all technology gets old eventually, and it may be better to buy the $400 range and upgrade every generation if you REALLY need the max performance at all times. Most people around here with a 470 are just now starting to look at buying in the 600-700 generations.

 

[bigcyco1]

There no such thing as future proof

 

[Pinhedd]

Running on an overclocked i5 3570k processor and a decent motherboard, how future proof are a pair of GTX690s running in quad SLI? I am relatively new to the building aspect of computers, so even though I know the benchmarks and such things that are readily available for reading online, I still am not so sure about these things in a manner that more seasoned people around here might understand. My question is how far into the future can I expect those two dual gpu cards to bring me ultra graphics settings in a good enough framerate (>60fps)

A pair of GTX690s aren't even present-proof. Driver support for 3 and 4 way GPU solutions (GTX 690 is a dual GPU solution in case you're not aware) is incredibly shoddy.

 

[Novuake]

The same future proofing as ANY card above $300. You will still need to upgrade when DX12 release or whatever tech improves.

 

[pentiumradeon]

well to answer everyones questions, two 690s put together are technically quad sli, since they are basically two 680s put together in one card at slightly slower clocks. You all didnt really answer my question, based on your experience having had even 400 series nvidia gpus as some of you say, how long did those cards last you before you realized you had to upgrade to get decent framerates on current games. and also wouldnt the cards be upgradeable driver wise to run direct x 12?

 

[pentiumradeon]

You say a "pair" of 690's running in "quad SLI"? I guess, technically, a 690 is two cards put together, but do you mean 2 690's, or 4 690's?

To answer your question, they will future proof well, but understand that this is flawed logic: all technology gets old eventually, and it may be better to buy the $400 range and upgrade every generation if you REALLY need the max performance at all times. Most people around here with a 470 are just now starting to look at buying in the 600-700 generations.

you cant put 4 690s together... the sli bridge only works for what is essentially two way sli, but is really quad sli, since as you stated it is "technically,... two cards put together"

 

[babernet_1]

690's are obsolete already.

Do a search on Nvidia Geforce Titan. Due out this month with more graphics power than a 690, even more power than a 7990. Probably anywhere from early to mid 2014 Nividia's Maxwell will be out, probably a good 50% more than the Titan.

AMD was to come out with their 8970's in a month or two, but was put off till summer. But they are only 20% or so better, clock for clock than the 7970's. Frankly, AMD is bleeding money by the millions. I'd start thinking of avoiding them. Their service, support, and design of new products just won't be very good as time rolls by.

 

[DarkSable]

Anyways, point is, there's no point in paying for two 690s - it's a waste.

Why spend $2000 now for a solution to run on ultra for six years when you can buy a 670, run on ultra for three, then buy a 970 (or whatever exists by then) and continue to run on ultra for another three? It's cheaper and gets you better performance for longer.

 

[DarkSable]

6AMD was to come out with their 8970's in a month or two, but was put off till summer. But they are only 20% or so better, clock for clock than the 7970's. Frankly, AMD is bleeding money by the millions. I'd start thinking of avoiding them. Their service, support, and design of new products just won't be very good as time rolls by.

You've got your info wrong - the 88xx series is launching first, which is coming out in a month or two - the 89xx will be launched in june.

As for how much better they are, that's because the 7k series has had time to mature - we can expect to see a 10-20% increase in performance. (I mean, the 8870 is going to be competing with the 680 at release... for under $300.)

As for amd "bleeding money by the millions," that's simply wrong - yes, they're doing worse right now than they were this time last year, but they're currently on an upward trend anyways. AMD isn't going anywhere.

 

[babernet_1]

You've got your info wrong - the 88xx series is launching first, which is coming out in a month or two - the 89xx will be launched in june.

As for how much better they are, that's because the 7k series has had time to mature - we can expect to see a 10-20% increase in performance. (I mean, the 8870 is going to be competing with the 680 at release... for under $300.)

As for amd "bleeding money by the millions," that's simply wrong - yes, they're doing worse right now than they were this time last year, but they're currently on an upward trend anyways. AMD isn't going anywhere.

I really do hope you are right. If AMD goes under, Nvidia will raise the prices of their cards, slow way down on the driver development and design of new cards, and overall treat its customers like crp. I do remember reading that AMD's next generation cards were delayed until summer. Got a link???

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-fundsnapshot
AMD lost a cool BILLION dollars in FY2011.

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsarticle&ID=1776795
More financials, loss of 422 million last quarter? Really? That's getting better?

 

[stickmansam]

The titan is all marketing, doubt it willl ever come to be at what is rumoured now

As had been said, it is better to upgrade more frequently and resell parts while they are still relevant and have value than to try and get the most perfromance now

 

[cuecuemore]

If you have that kind of money to spend you could grab 2x 680 right now, then sell them if/when Titan materializes and grab 2 of those and come out way ahead.

 

[pentiumradeon]

i thought that the 690 was still going to be about 25% faster than the titan. considering its a dual gpu solution. titan will be faster than a single 680

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

No matter how fast you can push framerates your equipment will be "obsolete" come the next version of direct X. So I would say that you will be good for the next 3 years. By then dx12 games will be mainstream. Because of this I would only recommend something as extreme as "quad sli" if your running multiple monitors.

As far as future proofing is concerned your better off with dual gtx 670 and keep the money saved for a upgrade in 3 years.

 

[Swolern]

i thought that the 690 was still going to be about 25% faster than the titan. considering its a dual gpu solution. titan will be faster than a single 680

The concept you dont understand is quad SLI scaling is horrible. Trust me i have them. And this is at a high resolution of 5760x1080 @ 120hz. Due to the current technology of SLI anything over 2-way will scale bad in many games.

Here is the rundown:
-2-way SLI scales good in 95% of AAA games
-3way SLI scales good in @ 30% games
-4-way scales good in @ 2% of games

Truth is 3-way and 4-way SLI even run slower than 2-way SLI in some games. Trust me there are a ton of problems when getting up to that level. I will never go 4-way SLI again.

If you have that kind of money to spend you could grab 2x 680 right now, then sell them if/when Titan materializes and grab 2 of those and come out way ahead.

Listen to Cuecuemore. This is your absolute best option currently available. If triple screens you could add 1 more 680 to get that extra performance 30% of the time.

For the Titans (rumored to be more performance than the 690) http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-titan-gtx-780-performance-surpasses-gtx-690/ You only need 1 Titan for a resolution up to 2560x16o0 to max out every game possible for a while. If you have a res 5760x1080 @ 120hz(3d) or 7680x1600, then and only then will you be able to utilize 2 Titans. Otherwise you will just blow your money on something that will do nothing at all most of the time over 680 2-way SLI.

 

[JJ1217]

690's are obsolete already.

Do a search on Nvidia Geforce Titan. Due out this month with more graphics power than a 690, even more power than a 7990. Probably anywhere from early to mid 2014 Nividia's Maxwell will be out, probably a good 50% more than the Titan.

AMD was to come out with their 8970's in a month or two, but was put off till summer. But they are only 20% or so better, clock for clock than the 7970's. Frankly, AMD is bleeding money by the millions. I'd start thinking of avoiding them. Their service, support, and design of new products just won't be very good as time rolls by.

50%? Stop pulling out numbers out of your ass. Maxwell imo, is more on a improvement on power consumption rather than actual performance.

The Titan will be like, what.. $899? Still overpriced.

 

[Swolern]

The Titan will be like, what.. $899? Still overpriced.

If the rumors are true and the Titan has more performance than a $1000 GTX 690 (dual GPU card). You think he Titan is overpriced at $899 for a single GPU card solution? Expensive, yes. Overpriced, no. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve with your PC.

 

[Swolern]

50%? Stop pulling out numbers out of your ass. Maxwell imo, is more on a improvement on power consumption rather than actual performance.

Sorry buddy you are wrong there.

 

[JJ1217]

If the rumors are true and the Titan has more performance than a $1000 GTX 690 (dual GPU card). You think he Titan is overpriced at $899 for a single GPU card solution? Expensive, yes. Overpriced, no. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve with your PC.

This is based on the assumption that a GTX 690 will continue its price at $1000 upon release of the Titan. I wouldn't say anything about the Titan being better until we see more information, that "article" was a rumour.

 

[JJ1217]

Sorry buddy you are wrong there.


http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q508/swolern/maxwell_zps26828b82.jpg

Look at the graph more closely. It says Per Watt on the y axis. Not to mention Nvidia and AMD would lie to get more sales.

 

[abbadon_34]

re: CUDA Architecture Roadmap

Reminds me of the Bulldozer Roadmap, very promising on paper, yet didn't deliver. Not to mention CUDA is barely related to gaming, and may be irrelevent if/when OpenCL is widely adopted. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a huge GPU performance jump, but it's not there even on paper

Back to the OP, (2) 690's are just for those with money to burn, as above, while theoretically it could be useful in surround 3d gaming, the scaling just isn't there.

 

[renz496]

You've got your info wrong - the 88xx series is launching first, which is coming out in a month or two - the 89xx will be launched in june

will you post link about this? AFAIK i only know amd will release their card from top to bottom in the past except the 6k series because nvidia goes into attacking mode with their GTX460 back then.

As for how much better they are, that's because the 7k series has had time to mature - we can expect to see a 10-20% increase in performance. (I mean, the 8870 is going to be competing with the 680 at release... for under $300.)

i heard amd claiming 30% performance increase but they say 15% is more likely. they did not mention which chip but i think it was 8970 improvement over 7970. but that is story from october last year

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/11/what-is-the-latest-on-amds-sea-islands/#.UQ46CKWRDA0

 

[bigshootr8]

I would just like to say that most games would more then likely perform worse under a quad 690 solution. 2 graphic cards tends to be the sweet spot in terms of multiple GPU performance that and maybe if you had a sli setup+ a physx card otherwise anything beyond 2 cards is normally reserved for getting really high benchmark scores. You would be better off getting the best card you could get. If it ends up being titan its titan if its the 700, 8000 series cards then its those. But quad sli and tri sli is bad for gaming.

 

[Novuake]

well to answer everyones questions, two 690s put together are technically quad sli, since they are basically two 680s put together in one card at slightly slower clocks. You all didnt really answer my question, based on your experience having had even 400 series nvidia gpus as some of you say, how long did those cards last you before you realized you had to upgrade to get decent framerates on current games. and also wouldnt the cards be upgradeable driver wise to run direct x 12?

No DX capability is not enabled by drivers.