4gb 680 vs 2 gb 670??

[edhahaha]

Hello guys , currently I have to make a decision here, I m using an Asus direct cu II 670 2 gb card now , but a friend of mine is wanting to swap me with his 4 gb Asus direct cu II 680, because he wants to go sli 670 , I only game on 60 hz 1920x 1080 monitor , no triple monitor or sli for me unless I win the lottery , cpu 2700k, so am I better off swapping or keeping the 670? Cuz I know 680 is slightly faster than 670..but I heard the extra memory will have more latency..so please help

 

[radrok]

unless he's trying to give you a bad chip then make the deal, the 680 4gb will be more future proof and the memory latency isn't gonna hit performance in a noticeable way.

 

[EarthDog]

4GB is massive overkill for 1080p... That said, if it works, swap it as its free.

 

[DarkOCean]

A 680 for a 670 without any extra money? sure go for it;
As for the memory latency issue you mentioned, I havent heard of that problem in recent gpus.

 

[edhahaha]

Ya. . It's not a bad chip or anything. And free swap.. since he's thinking its way much cheaper to get a 670 2 gb than a 680 4gb for sli. That's why he offered the swap, so I guess I should go for it ? And hopefully the 4gb wont be much issue for my 1080p monitor then..

 

[radrok]

Why would it be an issue? I think your situation is only a gain.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

A 680 for a 670 without any extra money? sure go for it;
As for the memory latency issue you mentioned, I havent heard of that problem in recent gpus.

its all over. there benchmarks at hardOCP of 2GB 680 vs 4GB 680 with triple monitors so pretty high resolution (not sure exactly) and the 2GB card was getting better average or minimum FPS then the 4GB card. but only about .5-1FPS.

 

[edhahaha]

Ya. I saw articles where 2gb 680 is actually faster than 4gb 680 on single monitor ...but I forgot the source .that's why I thought it could actually slow it down

 

[ueutyi]

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make 680 sli with 670

 

[newtekie1]

Ya. I saw articles where 2gb 680 is actually faster than 4gb 680 on single monitor ...but I forgot the source .that's why I thought it could actually slow it down

It might be 1FPS(you'll never notice it) slower than a 2GB version, but it will still be faster than a GTX670.

 

[EarthDog]

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make 680 sli with 670

False. There is a way to do that, though I wouldnt recommend it.

 

[Kaynar]

4GB is massive overkill for 1080p... That said, if it works, swap it as its free.

I already wish I had a 6GB 7970 for Skyrim cause the card has the "horsepower" but lacks VRAM for proper mods. And I can state 3 more games from 2012 that required nearly 3GB (above 2GB) of VRAM. I have a single 1200p screen.

So my opinion is that 4GB should have been the DEFAULT value for a GTX680.

In fact I believe this is going to be the first time that modern GPUs will become outdated due to VRAM limit rather than graphical power.

 

[micropage7]

4gb 680 of course, better and bigger memory

 

[EarthDog]

I already wish I had a 6GB 7970 for Skyrim cause the card has the "horsepower" but lacks VRAM for proper mods. And I can state 3 more games from 2012 that required nearly 3GB (above 2GB) of VRAM. I have a single 1200p screen.

So my opinion is that 4GB should have been the DEFAULT value for a GTX680.

Thats an opinion...and perhaps a valid one for your res. However the OP is 1080p so that isnt terribly relevant here. Here are some actual results of a few games including Skyrim with several mods.

CLiff's - Even at 3 monitor resolution, it didnt break 4GB. 3GB is fine. As you can see at 1080p resolution, 2GB is fine for the vast majority of games at the 1080p resollution, includiing Skyrim with mods. Since you are on 1200 res, a 3GB card will suffice... and is cheaper anyway for the same performance.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=718118

 

[BarbaricSoul]

Personally, I wouldn't even have to think about it. Yes, I would make the trade.

 

[Kaynar]

Thats an opinion...and perhaps a valid one for your res. However the OP is 1080p so that isnt terribly relevant here. Here are some actual results of a few games including Skyrim with several mods.

CLiff's - Even at 3 monitor resolution, it didnt break 4GB. 3GB is fine. As you can see at 1080p resolution, 2GB is fine for the vast majority of games at the 1080p resollution, includiing Skyrim with mods. Since you are on 1200 res, a 3GB card will suffice... and is cheaper anyway for the same performance.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=718118

Well MSAA drains VRAM like crazy so yeah with FXAA you never go above 2GB and still have almost the same graphics. The games I had in mind (Crysis 3, Tombraider and Hitman - oups they are not 2012 games) will run at 1900MB at 1200p with FXAA but just to >2500MB with MSAA. Other than that, comparing to previous gen cards, the 2GB and 3GB standards for today might sound big but most games are near that limit, while in previous years 512MB and 1GB was "plenty enough", no game was getting close to those numbers. I really think for a GTX680 2GB is not enough cause this ruins the future-proof state of the card. With 4GB 680 the OP will not only have a slightly faster card but will also be able to safely skip the next gen cards which I don't think will be the case with those having only 2GB or 1.5GB (and of course will want to keep their settings maxxed out).

 

[Cotton_Cup]

if you can afford either it's a no brainer 4gb 680 for e-peen ^_^

 

[EarthDog]

Well MSAA drains VRAM like crazy so yeah with FXAA you never go above 2GB and still have almost the same graphics. The games I had in mind (Crysis 3, Tombraider and Hitman - oups they are not 2012 games) will run at 1900MB at 1200p with FXAA but just to >2500MB with MSAA. Other than that, comparing to previous gen cards, the 2GB and 3GB standards for today might sound big but most games are near that limit, while in previous years 512MB and 1GB was "plenty enough", no game was getting close to those numbers. I really think for a GTX680 2GB is not enough cause this ruins the future-proof state of the card. With 4GB 680 the OP will not only have a slightly faster card but will also be able to safely skip the next gen cards which I don't think will be the case with those having only 2GB or 1.5GB (and of course will want to keep their settings maxxed out).

Its not a slightly faster card. Its the same card with more ram.

The vast majority of games (ok, the games tested in that link, LOL!) do not touch 2GB at 1080p as I showed with the link above. If you are above that resolution or know you mod the hell out of a game, then get a 3GB/4GB card. Like you said, perhaps use FXAA if MSAA breaches 2GB and you are getting slow downs.

I also ran BF3 at 2560x1440 with a 680 with zero problems (though it seems that game scales dynamically with vram oddly enough).

 

[tokyoduong]

If the card works then do the trade. He can't sli 680 with 670 so it's a valid reason. This benefits both of you. 4GB is NOT overkill because IT"S FREE!.
I think generally, the higher memory card is slightly slower because of a slight difference in latency. In this card, the difference in performance barely register on benchmarks and definitely not noticeable by any humans.

 

[EarthDog]

You can SLI with a 670...: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158907

Overkill is overkill regardless of cost...

 

[edhahaha]

Thanks for all the opinion . I guess its win win so may as well do it... and ya.. probably regardless the latency 680 will be faster than 670 no matter wat I guess