Gtx 670 4Gb vs Gtx 680 vs 7970

[PEXON]

I can EASILY use 4gb of vRAM in the cryengine with only 512x512 textures at 480p.

I'lold

Also, no need to talk to people like they are a piece of shit.

 

[Master&Puppet]

Or you just want to play BF3 maxed. Seriously play BF3 maxed, I hit 2gb EASY with BF3 on my 680.

Mate, I know you've got a thing about this but its really not true that you need all that vram.

Regardless of people's opinion on 'how vram usage works' all anyone has to do is check out the reviews of the 2gb card to see that they are more than powerful enough.

Comparing a 560 to a 680 has issues. Whilst having less vram could well cause buffering issues on the 560 you also have to compare the capabilities of the processors which aren't exactly equal. Apples to apples etc.

Here's a review of the 4gb 680 which was specifically set up to test the advantage of having 4gb. I quote from the conclusion:

"The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference."

Multiple monitors, probably, but not a single screen. Processor limited first.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

Mate, I know you've got a thing about this but its really not true that you need all that vram.

Regardless of people's opinion on 'how vram usage works' all anyone have to do is check out the reviews of the 2gb card to see that they are more than powerful enough.

Comparing a 560 to a 680 has issues. Whilst having that less vram could well cause buffering issues on the 560 you also have to compare the capabilities of the processors which aren't exactly equal. Apples to apples etc.

Here's a review of the 4gb 680 which was specifically set up to test the advantage of having 4gb. I quote from the conclusion:

"The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference."

Multiple monitors, probably, but not a single screen. Processor limited first.

The point was not that it would perform worse, the point was that with BF3 and other games, the card with the more memory will visually look better. Look at the pictures I posted. Yes they are small but you can still see it. It is a visual look, not a performance issue.

 

[Archie42dj]

Thanks for all the useful info everyone at the moment I'm leaning towards either a 7970 and then overclocking it, or 2 7870s running in crossfirex, although I brought this up in a previous thread and was told that it might not be such a great idea. Any input would be greatly appreciated

 

[Timeless]

Comparing a 560 vs a 680 is just silly.
Show us some pics of cards with equal processing power and different amounts of VRAM otherwise your arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Ulijin]

I have 2x4GB 680 SLI'd and it works nicely running BF3@5760x1080. I used to have 1 2GB 680 running the same. The real difference I noticed is as Josh suggested the caching of graphical detail.

For example when transitioning from being zoomed out with a sniper rifle to being zoomed in, with 2GB you could see bushes and other detail popping into view a millisecond after you zoomed in. With 4GB the detail already exists when you zoom in.

2GB will easily do you for 1 monitor, but if you think you might change to a multiple monitor setup in the future it could be worth getting the 4GB version to "future proof" it.

If I was buying again today I'd get a 670gtx

The attached image says it all

 

[Archie42dj]

Thank you! Probably one of the most sensible replies since the thread started! I'm only gaming on a single 1080p monitor so vram shouldnt be much of a problem right?

 

[Ulijin]

VRAM isn't an issue for your setup in BF3, cheers