Gtx 680 lightning sli

Any 680 gtx will do, even the 670 gtx is suitable for sli, i'd get two 670 gtx msipower editions.

i need top notch brother irrespective of cost .......................but i want to kno if my psu can handle a gtx 680 lightning edition in sli

coz gtx 680 is triple overvolted draws quite some power i hear

If you want top notch, you should be open to an AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition since its the best single GPU. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

It costs around the same as the 680 but performs better. Get this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... It also comes with Crysis 3 and Bioshock for free.

Your powers supply should be enough for these GPU's and possibly some overclock. Corsair makes good PSU's.

"Triple overvolting" is marketing from MSI and that's about it. It just means you can increase the voltages on your card...... except you can't because Nvidia got their panties in a bunch about overclocking and made MSI neuter the Lightning just like all the other 6xx cards.

So power draw will be about what you see on other 680s, and your power supply is fine.

You might have heard about power draw on the 7970 Lightning, which can be overclocked/overvolted and can suck down some crazy power as a result even relative to other OC/OV 7970s.

If you want top notch wait till the Nvidia Titan comes out at the end of the month with a projected +30% increase over a single GTX 690. It would decimate the 7990 and 7970ghz edition.

Aside from an incredibly sketchy 3dmark11 slide that appears to be fake, the Titan is "projected" as 85% of the 690's performance. It's also supposed to be a $900 card, and almost certainly very difficult to acquire due to limited stock.

I agree that it's worth waiting to see how things actually shake out, but there's only a small chance that Nvidia releases something as good as what you're claiming (and by the way, if they do, I'm buying one).

30% increase is pushing it... They stated it would be 85% of the 690 then some random person posted a 3dmark11 extreme score with the graphic card crossed out and called it a titan... Who know if its true... I would say the titan will be about 85%-110% of the GTX 690, and worth the wait to see how it performs if you are going to drop that amount of money on graphic cards. It should cost around $800-$900 and is rumored to come out at the end of this month.

EDIT: Grrr BigMack70 posted like the same thing i did just seconds before me! his post was not here when i was typing! not fair.

You should wait for the release of Nvidia Tytan rather than spend all kinds of money on SLI 680's

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-titan-features-6-gb-...

i agree with u  

geforce titan hardly crosses 690.............very rare though ......................there are rumors it could be almost same as gtx 690

1) If you're playing on two monitors, you need 4GB cards. If you aren't playing on two monitors, then you REALLY don't need SLI - a single card of the caliber we're talking about will max out any game.

2) The 680 is only 5% faster than the 670, but it's 25-30% more expensive. It's just a bad idea to buy one, even if you want the bragging rights.

A single 2GB 670 will max out basically any game out there. If you're playing on three monitors, get two 4GB 670s.

Just to play devil's advocate... there are to my knowledge ZERO tests out there that show a performance advantage to 4GB 6xx cards over their 2GB counterparts, even when SLI is considered.

Really... think of it this way. If you want to max out games (yes at only 1080p) from 2011 and 2012 go with 670 2gbs all day. GREAT VALUE...
As you said you dont care about the cost so... If you want to max out games (yes even at 1080p) from 2013 and 2014 I would recommend spending the money on 4gb. Games already use over 2gb and will continue to use more.
Far too many 2gb 670 fanboys. If you've got 680 money to spend, spend it, and spend it right.

It has nothing to do with 670 2GB fanboys, it has to do with there being nothing other than paranoia and theorycrafting to support the idea of getting 4GB cards. Every 4GB 6xx card review has come to the same conclusion: no performance advantage to the 4GB card attributable to the vram increase.

To be quite honest, if vram is a concern for you, you really should be picking up 7970 cards anyways.

2GB will not be enough VRAM forever bud. Some games already max it. And when you hit that wall your fps will absolutely throttle back to compensate for the LACK of vram. Thats not theorycrafting or thoughtsmithing. So when somebody says the words "i need top notch brother irrespective of cost" I dont feel Im wrong for bringing this to their attention.

People with 2gb 670s will always tell you its more then enough ans people with 4gb 680s will always tell you the truth... Its never enough.

It IS theorycrafting, because you ASSUME that the 670/680 will have enough raw GPU power to handle the settings and resolutions which would crank vram needs beyond 2GB.

Is it possible that will happen? Yes. Is it possible that will not happen? Yes. We don't know. Hence, theorycrafting. This applies to SLI discussions as well.

Given how 670/680 SLI performs in current titles at triple-screen resolutions (have to turn down settings) and at 1440/1600p single screen resolution (barely maxable or have to turn down some AA), I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that 6xx cards will be out of power long before they could run settings that need 4GB vram.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But nobody knows. We'll know in a couple years if there are people with 4GB 670/680 SLI setups that are still running fine where their 2GB counterparts are out of vram.

And like I said, you're barking up the wrong tree with 4GB Kepler cards anyways... 7970s are cheaper and perform better at the types of resolutions where vram is a concern.

This is absolutely not true. I might say something along these lines to a nub casual gamer to prevent them from spending too much on tech that goes obsolete so quickly, but for someone wanting top performance this is just garbage.

For example, on Skyrim with about 35 mods and ENB, my 2X 670 SLI rig uses 3.5GB of VRAM. Frame rates generally stay above 60, but I can get it to dip below in some situations.

They already do. A single 680 DOES push the vram to over 2gb in some games already released. A single 680 DOES push the vram to over 2gb in some games already released. Thats like 4 times I have said it now. I dont know where you have been bud. Now are you expecting games to use more or less VRAM this year? More obviously. The rest of what you said is moot. Ive owned both and played both single and SLI on the latest games. And don't even get me started on AMD...

THANK YOU ANODYNIC. Somebody speaking with some real experience. You are absolutely right.

Precisely none of this has anything to do with performance. None of it.

Games ALWAYS will cache and fill up more vram than they need to perform their best. That's how things work. Go read some reviews. There are NONE, that I'm aware of (and I've read quite a few), that show ANY performance increase, even in SLI or at triple screen resolutions, for a 4GB card over a 2GB one.

Let me give you an example, using Skyrim since you brought it up. I have two Skyrim installs - one of which has about 400 mods and a heavily modified ini file using higher than ultra settings and ugrids = 11. Vram use immediately caps out at 3GB per 7970 upon loading a game.

I've got another Skyrim install with a couple dozen mods and a standard ultra config file. Vram use immediately hits 3GB after loading a game. Now, the former is going to use a LOT more vram than the latter, but performance is the same in both cases (other than ugrids stability issues on the former  ). Why is that? Because games cache more vram than they need for performance.

Hence, theorycrafting and paranoia.

And I'll get you started about AMD... it has an extra gig of VRAM (than the standard 2gb 670/680), a wider memory bus, is cheaper, and flat out performs better above 1080p than its GTX 6xx 4GB counterparts.

Ive never argued with anybody more confused then you. Arguing against the needs for extra VRAM for half hour then this....

Yeah I just read that and facepalmed - I made the appropriate edit. And my point isn't that the vram is necessary - if you wouldn't mind actually reading, you'll notice that I'm arguing it's the better card for someone *concerned* about vram.

I really, really think you need to read this:
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/14/asus_geforce_gtx_...

I bought my dad a gtx 680 4gb for xmas simply because the 4gb will last longer for newer games. True you don't notice a difference compared to the 2gb version but it was only $10 more so why the heck not? I think it will make a huge difference with newer games with extremely high texture packs such as Crysis 3 and MMO's with a crap load of players on the screen at once.

The issue is the memory bandwidth... The 680 can't utilize much more than 2gb because of this i believe, so having the extra really won't help much - unless you are able to overclock the memory by a huge amount.

Well for $10 difference it's a no brainer but in the US the difference tends to be more on the lines of $60+ and then it's pretty hard to justify unless money is no object.

Also, Crysis 3 looks similar to Crysis 2 in terms of vram use... I'm pushing around 2400 MB maxed out with 4xMSAA at 1440p which is pretty much in line with what Crysis 2 is, so it should be fine on 2GB cards.

Best answer selected by bhanu10.