Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best 600 series choice within a budget

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 13, 2013 1:23:03 PM

GPU: 2X AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.5GHz
RAM: 16GB
MotherBoard: Asus P8Z77-V PRO Motherboard (Socket 1155, 32GB DDR3 Support, ATX, Wifi, Intel Z77 Express, Network iControl, USB 3.0, Quad SLI/CrossFireX Support
PSU: 850W

I Play on a 46" TV, compatible with Nvidia's 3DTV Play

My budget is around £650-£700 so basically $1100.

I'm trying to get into this whole 3D thing, and have looked around myself and found myself for a good GPU set up, and i became stuck when it came to weighing up my options.

1) 2X GTX 670 4GB
2) 2X GTX 680 2GB
3) 1X GTX 690 4GB (which i know is like 2X 2gb)

So for the first 2, its where the drop from the 680 to 670 is worth it for the extra VRAM, or if the 680 has something over the 670 in terms of performance that isn't worth the drop.
Lastly its whether i should go all out on the 690, knowing it is technically 2X 2GB VRAM, and whether or not the higher model number means better performance in the end. But on top of that, i wouldn't be restricted to just having one of them, as my board supports quad SLI, and i could always upgrade in the future.

I'm probably not going to be doing multi-monitor set ups, and sticking with my TV, but i still want the best graphical power, along with 3D performance.

Thanks for any help.
February 13, 2013 1:35:54 PM

wait for new gen of cards to come out if you want to spend big money for eye candy
February 13, 2013 3:28:48 PM

Any idea of release date? I keep hearing different stories about how they are going to be released later this months, then others saying later this year.
Related resources
February 13, 2013 4:41:00 PM

I wouldn't bother with waiting for the next gen. It's probably six to ten months away.

As for current gen cards, the 670 and the 680 have nearly identical performance to such a point that several factory overclocked 670s inch out the reference 680. There's literally no worthwhile difference between them. The hardware difference of a somewhat slower GPU doesn't matter for them because their GPU already far outpaces its memory bandwidth (IE memory bandwidth is such a bottle-neck that the significant difference in GPU performance is brought down to nothing in real-world performance difference).

Another issue with the memory bandwidth is that these cards almost always run out of memory bandwidth before they run out of memory capacity with the 2GB models. The 4GB models are mostly gimmicks unless you have three or four of them in a huge SLI array and even then, the difference is difficult to quantify.
February 13, 2013 5:15:24 PM

blazorthon said:
I wouldn't bother with waiting for the next gen. It's probably six to ten months away.

As for current gen cards, the 670 and the 680 have nearly identical performance to such a point that several factory overclocked 670s inch out the reference 680. There's literally no worthwhile difference between them. The hardware difference of a somewhat slower GPU doesn't matter for them because their GPU already far outpaces its memory bandwidth (IE memory bandwidth is such a bottle-neck that the significant difference in GPU performance is brought down to nothing in real-world performance difference).

Another issue with the memory bandwidth is that these cards almost always run out of memory bandwidth before they run out of memory capacity with the 2GB models. The 4GB models are mostly gimmicks unless you have three or four of them in a huge SLI array and even then, the difference is difficult to quantify.



So then it comes down to either

2X GTX 680 2GB

1X GTX 690 4GB

I'm leaning towards GTX 690 for future proofing as i can get another later on to SLI.
February 13, 2013 5:18:08 PM

The 690 has little advantage over two 680s. Quad SLI generally still doesn't scale much better than triple SLI and at that point you might as well start off with three cheap 670s instead of a 690 anyway.

Also, it would be comign down tow a 690 or two 670s, not two 680s. 680s aren't worth buying because they have almost zero advantage over 670s in performance despite being more expensive.
February 13, 2013 5:26:42 PM

blazorthon said:
The 690 has little advantage over two 680s. Quad SLI generally still doesn't scale much better than triple SLI and at that point you might as well start off with three cheap 670s instead of a 690 anyway.

Also, it would be comign down tow a 690 or two 670s, not two 680s. 680s aren't worth buying because they have almost zero advantage over 670s in performance despite being more expensive.



Not sure if my board has 3 GPU slots?

So 2x 670s or 1X 690? since it will be doing dual SLI either way.
February 13, 2013 5:31:12 PM

Pretty much. I'd simply choose the two 670s if you specifically wanted that level of performance. It'd be cheaper, but performance and power consumption would be pretty much identical to the 690. You'd even have potential to have better temps and overclocking headroom if that's your thing because the cards have their own proper dual-slot coolers instead of sharing a dual-slot cooler so long as there'as at least one or two empty expansion slots of space below each card so that their coolers can *breath*. You're also more likely to be able to sell the 670s later on when you want to upgrade IMO.
!