680 2GB vs 680 4GB

[Lepton87]

Are there any NEW tests comparing those cards in new releases? I'd like to know if that 2GB is really limiting the card at PLAYABLE frame rates. If one card provides 30fps and the other 10fps then to me both are unable to offer enjoyable experience and both need to drop settings. However if one can muster 50fps and the other crawls at 15fps due to Vram than that would be an example where that 2GB is really too little for GK104. It would also be nice to see a GTX690 tested in new games and see how that once a 1000$ card compares to the competition also a 1000$ Titan. I'd like to see how severely crippled GTX690 is by its 2GB of RAM.

OK I found. It seems it's only 690 that is hurt by its small VRAM pool and only in a few titles at max settings that could easily be changed at not so big IQ penalty. When 680 hits its VRAM limits it's already too slow to provide playable framerates.


http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1443?vs=1446

It seems big Vram buffers are over-rated.

 

[Stuka87]

If you are only at 1080P, 2GB is still adequate for the majority of games. Kepler as a whole has not been doing well in newer games that are sponsored by nVidia, such as The Witcher 3.

Worst case scenario with the 2GB card is you start to notice hitching. FPS wont be dragged down as a whole, you basically will start to see the game have very short momentary FPS drops as things are loaded in and out of memory.

As for the 690, it performed poorly when new, the 7990 performed significantly better for several hundred less.

What games are you planning on playing?

 

[Silverforce11]

It matters only in a few games that the 680 performance class can handle if only it had more vram. One example in recent times, Watch Dogs with Ultra Textures. You need 3GB to enable it, and a 7950 can run it on High (not maxed) with Ultra Textures can get ~45fps at 1080p, whereas a 680 can't, it has to put up with crap textures/blurry IQ.

Also SOM will be a stutter fest on 2GB GPUs.

 

[Lepton87]

If you are only at 1080P, 2GB is still adequate for the majority of games. Kepler as a whole has not been doing well in newer games that are sponsored by nVidia, such as The Witcher 3.

Worst case scenario with the 2GB card is you start to notice hitching. FPS wont be dragged down as a whole, you basically will start to see the game have very short momentary FPS drops as things are loaded in and out of memory.

As for the 690, it performed poorly when new, the 7990 performed significantly better for several hundred less.

What games are you planning on playing?

I have a 980Ti@1500MHz(boost)/2000+Titan as PsyX accelerator (I hope I could get some use out of it in DX12 from asymmetric rendering) that was a question just out of curiosity. Those tests didn't include frame times. I forgot about that. Those micro-stutters can be really annoying even though they don't register in AVG FPS. I had 2-way CF, 3-way CF, 4-way CF and SLI so I know a bit about that.

It matters only in a few games that the 680 performance class can handle if only it had more vram. One example in recent times, Watch Dogs with Ultra Textures. You need 3GB to enable it, and a 7950 can run it on High (not maxed) with Ultra Textures can get ~45fps at 1080p, whereas a 680 can't, it has to put up with crap textures/blurry IQ.

Also SOM will be a stutter fest on 2GB GPUs.
__________________

Yeah SOM really needs 4GB at the very least, but* is the difference between ultra textures and normal textures that big as to call the non-ultra textures blurry crap? Any IQ comparison? Usually the difference between high and ultra in IQ is negligible so negligible that for example I play a lot of games on high even though they would still be playable on ultra simply because I have to really look for the differences in IQ so I don't notice them at all in motion.

*talking about watch dogs

BTW. 690 didn't perform poorly on the release date and 7990 wasn't available yet.

 

[SPBHM]

not a 680, but similar performance with 2vs4

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-380-2gb-4gb-review

 

[sm625]

not a 680, but similar performance with 2vs4

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-380-2gb-4gb-review

Big surprise: the extra 2GB does basically nothing. Even at 1440p, it does basically nothing.

 

[shady28]

It can make quite a big difference on a number of games.

Gamersnexus has some more comprehensive numbers than the ones at eurogamer. The biggest difference is in the minimum framerate. The sites that just go off of average framerates are missing the stutters that, while not affecting averages much, definitely can be frustrating and detract from the experience.

Take a look at min frame rate at 1440p - it jumps from 17fps to 29. That means FC 4 goes from hitching and stuttering to reasonable. Averages are not affected much in any of these, but that minimum....

Asssasin's Creed, the poster-child for more VRAM :