Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 680 FTW 4gb or GTX 680 Classified?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 26, 2013 11:56:24 PM

Has anyone had either of these cards? Is the difference between the two all that big? Should I get a GTX 680+ (has 4gb) instead? I don't really know how to overclock a GPU.

Note: Please, no one tell me that 4gb is a waste of money, because I really don't think it is. Current games, such as Crysis 3 (and in some cases, Crysis 2), Skyrim, Far Cry 3 are using 2gb of vram and up, and I don't want to deal with dramatic drops in FPS when it does reach the 2gb limit. Also, it is a huge future proof. It took a while for games to start using up 2gb, so it should take a while to use up 2 more.
February 27, 2013 12:07:45 AM

I would also like to ask, which has a better cooling solution? Are they both better than the reference cooling?
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 12:08:01 AM

Overclocking a Kepler card is the easiest thing in the world since nearly all of them are voltage locked. You just increase the memory and core clocks to what you see other people getting, and keep going until you get crashes, then back off.

A 670 offers far better value for money, an overclocked 670 will trounce a 680, thats not to say a 680 won't overclock, but its massively more expensive given the performance 5% performance difference.

Both of those use reference style coolers, the FTW offers decent cooling performance for its type but will be beaten in temps/noise by the Asus DirectCUII or Gigabyte Windforce cards, whether you go for a 680 or a 670 those are pretty much the best.

Also 4GB really isn't needed at 1080p, in the future when games are using more than 2GB a 670/680 probably wont cut it anyway.
Related resources
February 27, 2013 12:41:41 AM

cookybiscuit said:
Overclocking a Kepler card is the easiest thing in the world since nearly all of them are voltage locked. You just increase the memory and core clocks to what you see other people getting, and keep going until you get crashes, then back off.

A 670 offers far better value for money, an overclocked 670 will trounce a 680, thats not to say a 680 won't overclock, but its massively more expensive given the performance 5% performance difference.

Both of those use reference style coolers, the FTW offers decent cooling performance for its type but will be beaten in temps/noise by the Asus DirectCUII or Gigabyte Windforce cards, whether you go for a 680 or a 670 those are pretty much the best.

Also 4GB really isn't needed at 1080p, in the future when games are using more than 2GB a 670/680 probably wont cut it anyway.

Thanks for the reply. Regarding VRAM, I am seeing many benchmarks of current games at Ultra with a little bit of AA, sometimes reaching to 2.5 GB of VRAM usage.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 12:50:32 AM

Considering the 7970 beats the 680, is cheaper, has more memory, more memory bandwidth, way way better compute, and can even match titan in some benchmarks. plus has bioshock infinity and crysis 3 free...

A 680 is insane
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 12:52:49 AM

Well, if you are worried about vRAM then get a model with 4GB vRAM so you don't have to worry later on. And if you really want the bang for buck then AMD Radeo 7970 would be a good choice and can overclock to match and beat GTX 680 and has 3GB vRAM. So if you buy a GTX 670 then you better have the 4GB vRAM version (according to your benchmarks). But you can get a great card, like what I have, at the same price. Here Tom has a monthly list and 7970 has been the go to card for a while now and I don't see that changing until GTX 700 series come out!
February 27, 2013 1:03:33 AM

hero1 said:
Well, if you are worried about vRAM then get a model with 4GB vRAM so you don't have to worry later on. And if you really want the bang for buck then AMD Radeo 7970 would be a good choice and can overclock to match and beat GTX 680 and has 3GB vRAM. So if you buy a GTX 670 then you better have the 4GB vRAM version (according to your benchmarks). But you can get a great card, like what I have, at the same price. Here Tom has a monthly list and 7970 has been the go to card for a while now and I don't see that changing until GTX 700 series come out!

I see you have 2 7970s in Crossfire, how is that working out? I've heard about bad optimization for Crossfire lately.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 1:03:40 AM

go grab a 670 or a 7970. 680s are the worst values you can ever pick up right now.

you do know that a 4gb 670/680 performs worst than a 2gb card in most situations. the card itself isnt even powerful enough to make use of the extra vram

best value is get a 7970.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 1:08:45 AM

I don't think 2GB will be needed for a while, atleast at 1080p. Just tested Crysis 3 with 8x MSAA and its the first time I've seen all my VRAM used up, other than Skyrim with a stupid amount of mods.

http://i.imgur.com/p9gqpO0.jpg
BF3 at all ultra, 4x MSAA and FXAA.

http://i.imgur.com/n5fuCoK.jpg
Crysis 3 at 4x MSAA, close but not topping it out. Unrealistic scenario anyway because a single 670/680 will have its *** kicked in with that much AA.

Also agree with the 7970 comments. Less money, more speed, no worrys about VRAM. Only reason for a Nvidia card is for the 3D.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 1:14:02 AM

computeguy said:
I see you have 2 7970s in Crossfire, how is that working out? I've heard about bad optimization for Crossfire lately.


They are great. I haven't had any issues so far. I had bad time with SLI and that had to go. But this is awesome atm and I hope it stays the same way for the next 3 years.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 1:27:06 AM

^this. And it's hard to ignore your "computeguy"name. Nvidia ran away from compute to try to push graphics. AMD went to compute and trashed nvidia in it. AND won on graphics. All nvidia had is lower power consumption for crippled performance. For stripping features.
February 27, 2013 2:40:44 AM

TheBigTroll said:
go grab a 670 or a 7970. 680s are the worst values you can ever pick up right now.

you do know that a 4gb 670/680 performs worst than a 2gb card in most situations. the card itself isnt even powerful enough to make use of the extra vram

best value is get a 7970.

How is cooling on the 7970? I saw a video with fan noise, and it was incredibly loud. Is it really? Also, another thing I'm worrying about is the loss of adaptive Vsync. I get screen tearing without Vsync (my monitor isn't that good), but with Vsync on, I get horrible stuttering and fps drops.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 2:52:02 AM

unksol said:
Considering the 7970 beats the 680, is cheaper, has more memory, more memory bandwidth, way way better compute, and can even match titan in some benchmarks. plus has bioshock infinity and crysis 3 free...

A 680 is insane


This is 100% true. A stock 7970 beats a stock 680, and I have overclocked my 7970 so that I get 30% more performance then stock!

As for noise. NO PROBLEM! Get a dual fan 7970, and it will be quiet!
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 3:11:27 AM

computeguy said:
How is cooling on the 7970? I saw a video with fan noise, and it was incredibly loud. Is it really? Also, another thing I'm worrying about is the loss of adaptive Vsync. I get screen tearing without Vsync (my monitor isn't that good), but with Vsync on, I get horrible stuttering and fps drops.


XFX cards are known for the noise issue. At 30% fan RPM it was bad and once I reached 45% I couldn't deal with the coil whine and loudness. So I went with Sapphire and I swear you can't hear the fans even at 60% RPM and I haven't seen the 2 of mine go beyond 65 degrees Celsius and they idle at the same temperature of 32 degrees. I have a mesh side panel and the only thing I hear are the fans from the H80i. So grab Sapphire cards or ASUS for 7970 and even Gigabyte will be good but Sapphire and ASUS plus HIS are hands down cool and quiet. Cheers
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 3:13:50 AM

computeguy said:
How is cooling on the 7970? I saw a video with Also, another thing I'm worrying about is the loss of adaptive Vsync..

Don't. Its utterly pointless, just set an FPS cap in MSI Afterburner.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 3:47:45 AM

TheBigTroll said:
go grab a 670 or a 7970. 680s are the worst values you can ever pick up right now.

you do know that a 4gb 670/680 performs worst than a 2gb card in most situations. the card itself isnt even powerful enough to make use of the extra vram

best value is get a 7970.


+1, cannot said much better :D 

a c 537 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 5:26:35 AM

CaptainTom said:
This is 100% true. A stock 7970 beats a stock 680, and I have overclocked my 7970 so that I get 30% more performance then stock!

As for noise. NO PROBLEM! Get a dual fan 7970, and it will be quiet!


According to TechPowerUp, the 680 is faster than a 7970, or were you referring to the GHz edition?....



TheBigTroll said:
best value is get a 7970.

According to TechPowerUp, the 670 is a better value...
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 6:40:08 AM

I think The TPU don't include the games promotion that u get with radeon card in performance/dollar...

a c 143 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 7:15:18 AM

@OP

FTW has better OCing capabilities while the Classified has the best OCing possible.

And regarding the VRAM, you don't know what you're talking about, with the exception of Skyrim which uses the extra VRAM to store and load high resolution textures and packs the extra VRAM is useless even at 5760X resolution.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 11:43:29 AM

ilysaml said:
@OP

FTW has better OCing capabilities while the Classified has the best OCing possible.

And regarding the VRAM, you don't know what you're talking about, with the exception of Skyrim which uses the extra VRAM to store and load high resolution textures and packs the extra VRAM is useless even at 5760X resolution.


even if it has better overclocking, its limited by the fact that you cant overvolt. paying the 100 dollar premium wont get you 100mhz more overall speed
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 11:45:17 AM

17seconds said:
According to TechPowerUp, the 680 is faster than a 7970, or were you referring to the GHz edition?....
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/images/perfrel_1920.gif



According to TechPowerUp, the 670 is a better value...
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/images/perfdollar_1920.gif


assuming that the prices of 7970s are not the same as 670s. the 2 free games definitely beat out nvidia's free to play bundle as well
a c 537 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 2:19:50 PM

TheBigTroll said:
even if it has better overclocking, its limited by the fact that you cant overvolt. paying the 100 dollar premium wont get you 100mhz more overall speed

According to Guru3d, they were able to get the EVGA GTX 680 Classified up to 1293 MHz, 287 MHz over the reference clocks. The memory was able to overclock to 7114 MHz, a full 1.1 GHz more than the reference.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/evga_geforce_gtx_6...

In comparison, they were able to get the Asus Matrix Platinum ROG 7970 up to 1275 MHz with maximum voltage applied. The memory went up to 7008 MHz.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_7970_review_m...

Similarly, they only got the MSI 7970 Lightning up to 1190 MHz with maximum voltage.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_hd_7970...
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 4:11:46 PM

17seconds said:
According to Guru3d, they were able to get the EVGA GTX 680 Classified up to 1293 MHz, 287 MHz over the reference clocks. The memory was able to overclock to 7114 MHz, a full 1.1 GHz more than the reference.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/evga_geforce_gtx_6...

In comparison, they were able to get the Asus Matrix Platinum ROG 7970 up to 1275 MHz with maximum voltage applied. The memory went up to 7008 MHz.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_7970_review_m...

Similarly, they only got the MSI 7970 Lightning up to 1190 MHz with maximum voltage.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_hd_7970...


My 7970's memory is up to 7300 so byah! The fact is the 7970's stock is 925 core/5500 mem, whereas the 680's is 1058 core/ 6000 mem. So clock for clock, the 7970 IS faster than the 680. Thus if a 7970 even gets close to a 680's clock speeds, it will easily win.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 4:19:29 PM

17seconds said:
According to Guru3d, they were able to get the EVGA GTX 680 Classified up to 1293 MHz, 287 MHz over the reference clocks. The memory was able to overclock to 7114 MHz, a full 1.1 GHz more than the reference.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/evga_geforce_gtx_6...

In comparison, they were able to get the Asus Matrix Platinum ROG 7970 up to 1275 MHz with maximum voltage applied. The memory went up to 7008 MHz.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_7970_review_m...

Similarly, they only got the MSI 7970 Lightning up to 1190 MHz with maximum voltage.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_hd_7970...


you cant compare the mhz of different architectures of different cards
a c 537 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 6:20:24 PM

TheBigTroll said:
even if it has better overclocking, its limited by the fact that you cant overvolt. paying the 100 dollar premium wont get you 100mhz more overall speed


TheBigTroll said:
you cant compare the mhz of different architectures of different cards


a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 6:35:46 PM


cant see a reply
a c 143 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 7:16:28 PM

TheBigTroll said:
even if it has better overclocking, its limited by the fact that you cant overvolt. paying the 100 dollar premium wont get you 100mhz more overall speed

Since when did they lock the voltage? Give me an explanation for that I've been away a little bit.
EDIT: Actually you can achieve close results or similar with any standard card, it's just the luck, of course if it has good power phases.
a c 143 U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 8:05:10 PM

Maybe this happened after MSI was caught overvolting their cards.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2013 10:40:12 PM

nope. msi came out with their 680 lightnings (those were the best 680s you can get pick up) and evga came out with their classifieds. the evga one requiring a hardware overvolting device (evbot) and the msi using software. they first took down msi (there are only 5000 lightnings with a bios unlocked for overvolting) and then took down evga
February 27, 2013 10:46:31 PM

A 4GB GTX680 actually performs worse than a 2GB one, also your programs will turn into a laggy mess anyway far before 4GB is used because the GTX680 isn't nearly powerful enough to handle all 4GB and because of the restrictive 256-bit bus.

Also by the time games are using 2GB+ a GTX680 won't cut it anyways, 4GB is really only useful if you plan to 3 or 4 way SLI in the future.
February 28, 2013 1:27:05 AM

Damn I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that makes me nervous going AMD is the poor driver support that I'm seeing everywhere. Also I'm nervous to pull the trigger because isn't the 8000 series suppose to come out in March?
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 1:41:11 AM

NewbiePcgamer84 said:
Damn I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that makes me nervous going AMD is the poor driver support that I'm seeing everywhere. Also I'm nervous to pull the trigger because isn't the 8000 series suppose to come out in March?


AMD's driver support is excellent. Far better than Nvidia's crappy drivers that took one step forward and two backwards. I recently switched from Nvidia so I know. Maybe AMD was bad in the past. But not anymore...
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 9:38:40 AM

actually no. nvidia has much more stable drivers. ive had a couple of amd drivers crash on me and never on nvidia.

you can tell nvidia is more of a gaming company when they test out all their video cards for every game and publish their results so that you know what you can set the settings within a game so that it doesnt lag
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 3:01:28 PM

TheBigTroll said:
actually no. nvidia has much more stable drivers. ive had a couple of amd drivers crash on me and never on nvidia.

you can tell nvidia is more of a gaming company when they test out all their video cards for every game and publish their results so that you know what you can set the settings within a game so that it doesnt lag


So when you say "No," you mean I am lying or what? This isn't a matter of opinion. I had terrible problems with Nvidia drivers, and none with AMD's. If your experience was different then mine, fine. But everything I said HAPPENED!



At the end of the day almost all (Non-Fanboys) will tell you that neither Nvidia or AMD have bad drivers. This is the real truth. By now they are both good, and anyone who says otherwise had bad luck or is stuck in the past. Period.
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 4:02:49 PM

lets do a quick google search.

nvidia driver problems: 2,240,000 results

amd radeon driver problems: 4,190,000 results


lets pull out some toms hardware forums.

the nvidia section. i see both hardware and software but mostly hardware being incompatable
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-33-209.html

the amd section: i see both hardware and software problems, but most are software crashing
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-33-210.html


im not saying you are wrong, but accusing me that i said you talked total crap is wrong
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 4:50:57 PM

TheBigTroll said:
lets do a quick google search.

nvidia driver problems: 2,240,000 results

amd radeon driver problems: 4,190,000 results


lets pull out some toms hardware forums.

the nvidia section. i see both hardware and software but mostly hardware being incompatable
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-33-209.html

the amd section: i see both hardware and software problems, but most are software crashing
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-33-210.html


im not saying you are wrong, but accusing me that i said you talked total crap is wrong


LOL did you even check your links?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395374-33-nvida-contr...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/393661-33-driver-cras...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/393587-33-faulty-driv...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395246-33-nvidia-expe...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395178-33-driver

This was all found in the top third of your "Nvidia GPU" forum link. Yeah it seems their drivers are smooth sailing indeed! Again I am not saying one is better than the other, just that you are living in a bubble if you think there is a real difference. So don't paste more links, because I could have posted far more.


P.S. I should have noticed your name has "Troll" in it. My bad everybody. OP we have told you enough. The 7970 GHz is the clear choice in high end price performance (Especially when ram is an issue). Good luck, and please close this thread.
a c 537 U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 7:02:31 PM

AMD has gotten better, but their Achille's Heel is in new game support. AMD users tend to expect more dramatic increases in performance with newer drivers. Nvidia users tend to more expect consistency and stability.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/02/18/2012_amd_vide...

Another driver-level difference, and an increasingly important one, is in frame latencies. This is gradually taking the place of FPS as the preferred test metric to measure gaming performance. While Nvidia has placed an emphasis on frame latencies for at least a couple years, AMD has only, literally, just recently adopted this focus. As a result, Nvidia tends to do a little better with frame latencies, particularly in SLI vs. Crossfire.

Some links for more info:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
http://techreport.com/news/24136/driver-software-to-be-...
http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Frame-latency-yo...
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4002/amd-radeon-hd-7950...
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1685/pg7/zotac-nv...
http://techreport.com/blog/24415/as-the-second-turns-fr...
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2013 10:21:38 PM

CaptainTom said:
LOL did you even check your links?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395374-33-nvida-contr...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/393661-33-driver-cras...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/393587-33-faulty-driv...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395246-33-nvidia-expe...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395178-33-driver

This was all found in the top third of your "Nvidia GPU" forum link. Yeah it seems their drivers are smooth sailing indeed! Again I am not saying one is better than the other, just that you are living in a bubble if you think there is a real difference. So don't paste more links, because I could have posted far more.


P.S. I should have noticed your name has "Troll" in it. My bad everybody. OP we have told you enough. The 7970 GHz is the clear choice in high end price performance (Especially when ram is an issue). Good luck, and please close this thread.



would you like me to start pulling threads out of your section as well my friend?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394876-33-after-insta...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395451-33-radeon-7950...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/389647-33-catalyst-bl...
!