GTX680 4GB or orher card?

Sorry for the typo in the title!

gtx 680 is a waste of money! you can get the hd7970 ghz edition for less money and it will give you more performance (plus 7970 overclocks better),, or if you want nvidia go for the gtx 670 that cost 100 bucks less and its only 5-7% weaker than the gtx 680
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...

Thanks for the advice mate!I will consider the hd7970 and gtx670 but will i be able to run crysis on ultra high with this setup?

The best value, arguably is the Asus HD7970 http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=68755&vpn=HD7970-DC2-3...
*overclock to 1000MHz.
**comes with two games (digital download of: Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite)

Review: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_hd_797...

The only faster single-GPU card is the Geforce Titan which is $1000 if you can even get one.

"Future-proof"
There's no such thing as a future-proof gaming PC. The best you can do is get a solid base and upgrade only the graphics card in two or three years.

CPU:
You list the i7-3770:
- if you wish to overclock you need the i7-3770K model.
- the i5-3570K performs essentially the same as few games can use hyperthreading however some games MAY see a boost in the future. No idea.

VRAM:
2GB is fine for most games on a single monitor. HD7950/70's have 3GB. However, the GTX680 4GB cards are generally a bad idea as they often cost more money for more memory that you likely won't ever use. It's difficult to speak to the "future" but these things change slowly so get the best value NOW.

DDR3 RAM:
Any more than 8GB is a complete waste unless you have a specific non-gaming use for it. This fact is very unlikely to change for many years. You'd be far better off getting 8GB of 2133MHz as at least two games can benefit slightly from the speed increase and likely more in the future.

To be clear, more than 8GB of memory will simply sit, unused, creating heat unless you have a need like Video Editing (not just converting).

I considered getting a GTX TITAN but it is insanely expensive here in Turkey(1600$)If i was to get one i would have to ditch my ssd.

Also i dont want to get into OCing.Its too technical for me to handle

I agree with 7970 being the most balanced for the price. Even a gtx670 factory OC gets practically the same performance as a 680 stock in gaming. GTX 680 is jsut waste of money atm.

Future proof... well if u can afford u can go SLI or crossfire, 7970 CfX might do it for couple of years to come no sweat, or SLI GTX 670.

Titan forget it.... if anything a gtx 690 gets more performance than 1 titan, although is SLI in 1 card. Titan is just overprcied -.-

There is very little difference in price and you don't actually have to overclock the CPU if you don't want to.

If you decide later to do so at least you'd have the option. I had my Asus motherboard do a slight overclock to 4.1GHz while still maintaining power management. This simply involved clicking the auto tune option in the BIOS and also ensuring "XMP" was enabled.

*Note: you want "XMP" enabled which uses the optimal CPU/RAM values but also verify these are correct (if you get 2133MHz RAM make sure that's what it really is at).

SLI/Crossfire:
Micro-stutter is still a serious issue as are profiles to optimize multiple-GPU's. My advice is wait two or three years and replace the graphics card with another high-end, single-GPU card.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

In particular:
"The low standard deviation shown between frame times is a fraction of what other solutions offer, which in turn leads to significantly smoother onscreen performance. For example, the GTX 690 exhibits many of the issues normally associated with dual GPU cards like minor stuttering and outright frame hesitation, a situation the TITAN deftly avoids by virtue of being a single core solution."

The above statement is absolutely true.

So would HD7970 be enough for the most graphic desiring games?Like i know BF3 favors nvidia cards

And is SLI GTX670 or CfX 7970 better?

Refer to my above comment regarding SLI and Crossfire, as in "not recommended".

Very few current games can't run at 60FPS at max quality or close to max quality with an HD7970/GTX 680. Far Cry 3 is a glaring exception. When tweaking games I recommend doing the following:
1) start the game with VSYNC disabled and FRAPS running (so you can observe the frame rate)
2) TWEAK the quality settings so you get 60FPS most of the time
3) finally, enable VSYNC and disable FRAPS

Don't simply run a game at the highest quality settings if that drops you below 60FPS. You don't want awesome graphics with a low frame rate and stuttering. Also, if you don't use VSYNC you get screen tearing which can be very horrible in some cases, however if you enable it (recommended) and can't achieve 60FPS then it actually synchs to 30FPS instead so the game feels sluggish (FRAPS doesn't seem to show this though).

BF3:
Since you mention this game, be aware that "deferred AA" should be disabled. It causes a very muddy picture which is worse in dark areas.

Batman AC:
This game will stutter unless both PHYSX and DX11 are disabled (not that you'd use PHYSX in this game with an AMD card). The quality difference is actually very minor anyway.

RadeonPro:
- can force AA or VSYNC in games with no native support (examples: ME#1 for AA but use SuperSampling; Witcher 1 for VSYNC).
- can force 50FPS if supported (i.e. if a game is demanding you can try running at 50FPS with VSYNC instead of 60FPS with VSYNC which allows you to increase the game quality slightly while maintaining synch)

Thank you for your concern!I will go with the HD7970 that seems like the best solution for now.Im very glad you helped me out!