Widescreen Gaming Forum
http://www.wsgf.org/phpBB3/

Buying new GPU: 690, 2x670/680 in 8x8 SLI? 2 or 4 GB VRAM?
http://www.wsgf.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=24417		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Litego [ 05 Jul 2012, 23:26 ]
Post subject:  Buying new GPU: 690, 2x670/680 in 8x8 SLI? 2 or 4 GB VRAM?
I'm going to upgrade my GPU, I've currently got 2x460 768MB SLI OC'd. But a little while after buying those I figured I'd buy a Surround setup, so I bought 3x23" monitors. Obviously I am lacking VRAM, and the performance of the 2 460s in 5760x1080 is pretty damn poor.

These are my current specs:

MB: Z68A-GD65 (G3)
CPU: Intel Core i5-2550K @ 4.4 GHz
RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 2x4GB CL8
PSU: Corsair 1000W 80 plus gold (Don't remember exactly which model)

My MB only supports PCI-E 3.0 16x0 or 8x8 for SLI, so I'm wondering if there will be loss of performance going for 2x670/2x680 instead of a single 690 at those resolutions.

I'm also worried the VRAM of the 690 is too low. Will there be a 690 6 GB or 8 GB version? With surround resolutions I'm thinking 2x670/2x680 4 GB versions would be better, but I fear the 8x8 mode will take away the advantage and I don't want to buy a new MB too.

And finally overclocking, can I clock the 690 to the same speed as the 680? Does the 670 clock good?

Considering I'm going to spend around 1200 Euro on graphics cards I don't want to mess up. Price is not really an issue, but if 2x670 8x8 performs pretty much as good as a 690 for a lower price I don't see the point in going for a 690, especially considering the extra 2 GB of VRAM. Or if it's worth going for the 680 4 GB instead of the 670 4 GB. Or should I wait for a 6/8GB 690? I'll admit, I'm kind of a nVidia fanboy, maybe there are better options over at ATI that I have not considered?

I've been trying to do some research, but I find so few reviews for 5760x1080 resolutions which is where VRAM really starts to matter. It seems odd to me that the most powerful nVidia graphics card, the 690, only has 2GB of VRAM. Is that enough to run games like BF3 maxed without stuttering at 60+ FPS? Keep in mind I do not plan on using Anti-aliasing or VSync, so maybe I don't need the extra 2 GB of VRAM? However, it is vital that I get 60+ FPS. But I also want to future proof a little here, so extra VRAM is always nice.

I don't know, I'm confused! So many options, so many variables! Please help me! :D

Edit: Oh I also have the option of buying a 690 and using one of my old 460s as a dedicated PhysX card, is that maybe also a good alternative?
Author:  mapoetti [ 06 Jul 2012, 00:40 ]
Post subject:  Litego wrote:I'm going to
I'm going to upgrade my GPU, I've currently got 2x460 768MB SLI OC'd. But a little while after buying those I figured I'd buy a Surround setup, so I bought 3x23" monitors. Obviously I am lacking VRAM, and the performance of the 2 460s in 5760x1080 is pretty damn poor.

These are my current specs:

MB: Z68A-GD65 (G3)
CPU: Intel Core i5-2550K @ 4.4 GHz
RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 2x4GB CL8
PSU: Corsair 1000W 80 plus gold (Don't remember exactly which model)

My MB only supports PCI-E 3.0 16x0 or 8x8 for SLI, so I'm wondering if there will be loss of performance going for 2x670/2x680 instead of a single 690 at those resolutions.

I'm also worried the VRAM of the 690 is too low. Will there be a 690 6 GB or 8 GB version? With surround resolutions I'm thinking 2x670/2x680 4 GB versions would be better, but I fear the 8x8 mode will take away the advantage and I don't want to buy a new MB too.

And finally overclocking, can I clock the 690 to the same speed as the 680? Does the 670 clock good?

Considering I'm going to spend around 1200 Euro on graphics cards I don't want to mess up. Price is not really an issue, but if 2x670 8x8 performs pretty much as good as a 690 for a lower price I don't see the point in going for a 690, especially considering the extra 2 GB of VRAM. Or if it's worth going for the 680 4 GB instead of the 670 4 GB. Or should I wait for a 6/8GB 690? I'll admit, I'm kind of a nVidia fanboy, maybe there are better options over at ATI that I have not considered?

I've been trying to do some research, but I find so few reviews for 5760x1080 resolutions which is where VRAM really starts to matter. It seems odd to me that the most powerful nVidia graphics card, the 690, only has 2GB of VRAM. Is that enough to run games like BF3 maxed without stuttering at 60+ FPS? Keep in mind I do not plan on using Anti-aliasing or VSync, so maybe I don't need the extra 2 GB of VRAM? However, it is vital that I get 60+ FPS. But I also want to future proof a little here, so extra VRAM is always nice.

I don't know, I'm confused! So many options, so many variables! Please help me! :D

Edit: Oh I also have the option of buying a 690 and using one of my old 460s as a dedicated PhysX card, is that maybe also a good alternative?


hey guy...

your mobo it is ok. you mount a 690 or sli of 670 or 680

if you no have problem of money take 2 680 sli ;) no problem
8x8 pci not is a problem ;)
sli run good end not different with pci 16@16

or take 2 670 is good vga. i have 2 gtx 480 end run good ;)

gtx690 i no like.... duble gpu you wait new relase of driver for play in new game...;)

hi,good luck
Author:  Gilly [ 09 Jul 2012, 07:48 ]
Post subject:  Unless I was running say
Unless I was running say 3x30" screens, I would probably get GTX670 4GB cards personally.

You can put the money you save from not going 680's towards a 256GB SSD. IMO, that will help gaming more than the 670>680 upgrade (smoother windows and slightly faster game loading, no stuttering in games with large texture caching (WoW etc))
Author:  Litego [ 24 Jul 2012, 03:45 ]
Post subject:  I went with 2xEVGA GTX 670
I went with 2xEVGA GTX 670 4GB Superclocked and put the money I saved into a 3TB HDD. I already have 2 SSDs so I don't need that, but I am lacking in storage space. I also bought a new office chair, and those are fucking expensive! Cost more than the new cards did, but whatever, it's an investment which I don't have to upgrade every other year. Thanks for the tips guys!
Author:  Wijkert [ 24 Jul 2012, 12:00 ]
Post subject:  Litego wrote:I went with
I went with 2xEVGA GTX 670 4GB Superclocked and put the money I saved into a 3TB HDD. I already have 2 SSDs so I don't need that, but I am lacking in storage space. I also bought a new office chair, and those are fucking expensive! Cost more than the new cards did, but whatever, it's an investment which I don't have to upgrade every other year. Thanks for the tips guys!


Are you experiencing any microstuttering? You can disable and later reanable SLI and run a light game (so one gpu can run the game at 60 fps) to see if you feel any difference in smoothness.

PCI 3.0 is already twice as fast as 2.0. I would have been surprised if you would have seen any performance difference more than 1% between 16x/16x and 8x/8x.
Author:  Litego [ 24 Jul 2012, 16:21 ]
Post subject:  They're being shipped to me
They're being shipped to me now, they'll probably be here in 1-3 days. So I don't know about the micro stuttering now, is that a problem that can occur with lack of bandwidth? Last time I had micro stuttering was because my power supply was insufficient. Micro stuttering is a real pain in the ass though.

Sadly I won't be able to run PCIe 3.0 after all. I did some more research and found out that only Ivy Bridge CPUs have support for PCIe 3.0 (I've got Sandy Bridge), I was unaware it was affected by the CPU, I thought it was only about the motherboard. So apparently my LGA1155 motherboard supports Ivy Bridge after a BIOS update. I also found out that CPUs only have support for PCIe x16 across all slots. So 16x for single card , 8x8 in SLI, 8x4x4 in Tri-SLI and 4x4x4x4 in Quad-SLI. And to get 16x16 and other SLI configurations the MB need some kind of extra chip.

Regardless, I read a few tests about GTX 690 on PCIe 2.0 vs PCIe 3.0, and the difference was insignificant. And considering the 690 is pretty much double as fast and uses double the bandwidth, I reckon a 670 in PCIe 2.0 x8 would do just fine. The only time it really mattered was at higher AA settings. And for me that's not a problem as I find with a resolution of 5760x1080 there really is no need for loads of AA.

If it becomes a problem though I'll upgrade my CPU next month, but I hope I don't have to do that as I just recently upgraded it from an old Q9450, was hoping I could skip a generation or two.
Author:  Wijkert [ 24 Jul 2012, 17:04 ]
Post subject:  Litego wrote:So I don't know
So I don't know about the micro stuttering now, is that a problem that can occur with lack of bandwidth?


No, that won't be the case. Microstuttering can occur when using more than one gpu, especially in eyefinity or surround setups, but maybe you won't notice it. It will be there though.

And for me that's not a problem as I find with a resolution of 5760x1080 there really is no need for loads of AA


Well if there is need for AA at 1920x1080 that there might as well be need for AA at 5760x1080, unless you plan to be further away from your screens. It can be pretty demanding on your gpu though.

If it becomes a problem though I'll upgrade my CPU next month, but I hope I don't have to do that as I just recently upgraded it from an old Q9450, was hoping I could skip a generation or two.


I really doubt that there would be a need for upgrading to an Ivy Bridge cpu.
Author:  Litego [ 24 Jul 2012, 20:27 ]
Post subject:  Wijkert wrote:No, that won't
No, that won't be the case. Microstuttering can occur when using more than one gpu, especially in eyefinity or surround setups, but maybe you won't notice it. It will be there though.

Ah yes, as I said, I've had problems with it earlier, but since I bought my new power supply the issue went away, at least visually for me. I've read reviews with 2-way vs 3-way SLI that even though 3-way gave better FPS, the microstuttering completely destroyed the fluidity of the picture, so in the end they went with 2-way.

Well if there is need for AA at 1920x1080 that there might as well be need for AA at 5760x1080, unless you plan to be further away from your screens. It can be pretty demanding on your gpu though.

I'm sitting relatively close to the screen, when stretching my arms I can just touch the monitor, less than a meter. I can see the pixels, so AA helps, but I am not that nazi on it. If I can run it with AA @ 60+ FPS, I'll do it, but it's not an issue if I can't. For me as a twitch FPS gamer, high FPS is more important than visuals, but obviously when buying new cards I want good visuals too.
Author:  skeeder [ 25 Jul 2012, 13:09 ]
Post subject:  No sure if this is important
No sure if this is important but I'd almost spend another $40 on doubling your ram.

Just a thought.
Author:  Wijkert [ 25 Jul 2012, 15:32 ]
Post subject:  Why would he need to do that?
Why would he need to do that? It is hard to fill 4gb of ram with modern games, let alone 8gb.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/