670 gtx 2gb vs. 4gb

[hodgenutts]

Ok is there a difference in perfommance between a 2gb and a 4gb 670 gtx? There is about a $50 dollar difference between the two. I've been looking but can't find any info. Not looking for opinions but actual real comparison. Please help. Much appreciated

 

[Jaydip]

If you game @ 1080P don't bother with 4Gb versions.

 

[zCypher]

Wondering the same thing as I'm shopping for one too. In my case I need 1440p so I'm not sure if 2gb is enough.

If you usually keep your video card for a long time there might be a chance you would benefit from the bigger card in the long run. Could be worth the extra bit of money.

You might get higher resolution screen, games may become more demanding, etc. 2GB seems to be very common / average these days?

 

[ShintaiDK]

2560*1440 here and 2GB is more than enough in my experience.

 

[lavaheadache]

2560*1440 here and 2GB is more than enough in my experience.

haven't played modded Skyrim have you?

 

[UaVaj]

if you need more vram because you run large resolution with big texture. go amd for the necessary larger bandwidth.

nvidia need some catching up to do in this particular category. even with the 4gb version. you are still limited by the same 192gb/s memory bandwidth.

 

[Elfear]

haven't played modded Skyrim have you?

+1

ENB mods eat up the vram but it sure makes the game look purty.

 

[ShintaiDK]

haven't played modded Skyrim have you?

I did. But maybe not some exact community mod you use.

There are no problem with the regular HD textures.

 

[imaheadcase]

haven't played modded Skyrim have you?

Not many do.

 

[hodgenutts]

This is what I don't understand. Please educate me. If I upgrade my pc from 8gb of RAM to 16gb of RAm I can tell it runs faster even though the bus and bandwidth is the same. So why isnt this true with video cards. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

And i still havent been able to find an actual side by side bench of a 2gb and 4gb 670 to see real results :/

 

[Lean L]

This is what I don't understand. Please educate me. If I upgrade my pc from 8gb of RAM to 16gb of RAm I can tell it runs faster even though the bus and bandwidth is the same. So why isnt this true with video cards. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

And i still havent been able to find an actual side by side bench of a 2gb and 4gb 670 to see real results :/

Why would it run faster? If anything it runs slower if you get to 4 sticks of ram and it changes the command rate to 2.

 

[hodgenutts]

Simple, I upgraded my computer from 8 gb to 16gb of RAM and it runs significantly faster....

 

[ShintaiDK]

Simple, I upgraded my computer from 8 gb to 16gb of RAM and it runs significantly faster....

It shouldnt, unless you use more than 8GB. However Windows will use memory as cache that could give alittle performance in terms of I/O. Unused memory on a GPU is simply unused.

 

[Eureka]

This is what I don't understand. Please educate me. If I upgrade my pc from 8gb of RAM to 16gb of RAm I can tell it runs faster even though the bus and bandwidth is the same. So why isnt this true with video cards. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

And i still havent been able to find an actual side by side bench of a 2gb and 4gb 670 to see real results :/

First off, realize that RAM makes nothing run "faster". Think of RAM like a gas tank, or a water tank for your house. It won't make the car go faster, or the water come out faster, but it'll make sure it keeps coming out as fast as it can. When you run out, it's not coming out very fast at all, if at all.

Going from 8gb to 16gb will not make it run faster, unless you somehow maxed out your 8gb, or it's placebo. Samething for going from 2gb to 4gb. Unless you saturate all 2gb of your vram, you won't notice the difference.

 

[Lean L]

Simple, I upgraded my computer from 8 gb to 16gb of RAM and it runs significantly faster....

I feel like this is an example of when the market is dictated by shiny things instead of reason.

As for the original question. The additional 50 dollars may make you an additional $10 upon resale. That's pretty much the only difference. I have a 3GB 7950 and the max usage I've seen was 1.5GB with highest textures on 1920x1200 in sleeping dogs.

 

[Fx1]

I feel like this is an example of when the market is dictated by shiny things instead of reason.

As for the original question. The additional 50 dollars may make you an additional $10 upon resale. That's pretty much the only difference. I have a 3GB 7950 and the max usage I've seen was 1.5GB with highest textures on 1920x1200 in sleeping dogs.

BF3 can max out 2GB of Vram on High setting

 

[Lean L]

I've never seen bf2 use more than 1.3GBs with ultra settings. But then again I don't use AA.

 

[rgallant]

if you ever plan on sli get the 4 gb.

 

[Qbah]

I bought the 2GB model first. Then my modded Skyrim laughed at me (needs ~3GB at 1080p with the mods I use). Luckily I could exchange to a 4GB version.

If you plan to play Skyrim with the absolute best IQ mods and settings, get the 4GB model. I guess the next Fallout will be similar? Probably GTA V too?

I would hate to get a card I know would already limit me. Don't know how you feel about such things though, OP

 

[hodgenutts]

I don't want to be limited, just didn't know if the 256 bit bus would bottleneck the 4gb, but you answered that Qbah. Thank you. Now I'm just juggling the 4gb 256 bit 670 against a 3gb 384 bit 7950. I know 7950 is better value, but for some reason I'm drawn to 670.

 

[lavaheadache]

I bought the 2GB model first. Then my modded Skyrim laughed at me (needs ~3GB at 1080p with the mods I use). Luckily I could exchange to a 4GB version.

If you plan to play Skyrim with the absolute best IQ mods and settings, get the 4GB model. I guess the next Fallout will be similar? Probably GTA V too?

I would hate to get a card I know would already limit me. Don't know how you feel about such things though, OP

I guess you and I are a minority....

 

[Dark Shroud]

You're looking at the 670 because NVIDIA! Just get a quality 7950 and with a little tweaking between upping the GPU speed and powertune settings you'll have a far better gaming experience while saving some money.

 

[hodgenutts]

Actually I'm not looking at anything because its NVIDIA. I don't stick with one brand or the other. I play Blizzard titles and they work better with NVIDIA.

I know AMD was suppose to have better performance with the BETA drivers, but they don't work on my system. They fail to install. I've had to R.M.A. 2 XFX AMD cards this past month cause they were defective. A 7870 and a 7950.

Never the less I decided to give the "value" card another shot but with a different brand. Just ordered a HIS 7950 iceq x2 about an hour ago because of the cooler having active on the GPU and ram. Crossing my fingers.

And on that note, thanks to everyone for assistance

 

[UaVaj]

I don't want to be limited, just didn't know if the 256 bit bus would bottleneck the 4gb, but you answered that Qbah. Thank you. Now I'm just juggling the 4gb 256 bit 670 against a 3gb 384 bit 7950. I know 7950 is better value, but for some reason I'm drawn to 670.

you are obviously a die hard green team. i was too. :biggrin:

for single monitor 1920x1080 or less and normal texture/filters. green team all the way.

for larger monitor 2560x1440 and especially multi monitor and large texture/filters. time to seriously consider the red team.

just google 7970 vs 680. when big resolution and big texture come into play. nvidia is about ~15% behind in performance and not to mention ~20% more expensive.

also - 2.5gb is about the most any current game uses (crysis w/ big texture). so the 3gb should suffice.

 

[blackened23]

2560*1440 here and 2GB is more than enough in my experience.

I agree with this. The only time where 2GB isn't enough is by using too many mods or going overboard with anti aliasing @ high resolutions (such as 2560x)