• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gtx 295 -> ?

S

skace

Lifer
I believe the time has finally come to upgrade my GTX 295. It has been a good card, but an aging card. I'm trying to figure out whether to go with the 670, 680 or 690.

The 670 seems to be the smart choice, in that it is priced well and performance is within that top tier range and you will set yourself up for an upgrade when the next best card comes out.

The 690 seems to be a fun choice for me. It is a similar card to my GTX 295 and I like the fact that they over-engineered the parts for it. However, it also looks like you are setting yourself up for a very expensive card that is beaten months later by whatever comes out then.

Not sure what I think of the 680.

Where do the normal people stand on these 3? What should I be shooting for? I'm not really interested in spending time swapping out heat sinks or overclocking my video card anymore. I just want something awesome and stable without having to screw with it.
 
690 is an utter waste of money. 670 SLI if you want to spend the money

bf3_1920_1200.gif


If you're a BF3 fan
 
I'll be going from a 295 to a couple 670's (Asus when the frickin release), sooner rather than later hopefully.
 
Gtx 670 if you don't want to fiddle too much with overclocking. I would get a custom full length pcb card from Gigabyte, Galaxy or Asus though. Those ref cards seem ghetto for $400.
 
Yea I just noticed. However, when I went to EVGA's website I noticed they will have a 4GB GTX 670?? Whaaat
 
Well I run a 2560x1600 resolution 30" monitor right now. So more memory would be directly useful to me, I believe. Plus if I ever do SLI, I get the 8GB SLI versus the 690's limitation at 4GB.... And I do it without too much of a $ overhead. Not bad? I may need to watch where this goes a bit.
 
skace said:
Well I run a 2560x1600 resolution 30" monitor right now. So more memory would be directly useful to me, I believe. Plus if I ever do SLI, I get the 8GB SLI versus the 690's limitation at 4GB.... And I do it without too much of a $ overhead. Not bad? I may need to watch where this goes a bit.
Click to expand...

That's not how VRAM works in SLI, the two cards don't get added together in that respect. You're basically running mirror images of the data on each card, so if they're both 2GB cards, you have 2GB total. 4GB cards, 4GB total. VRAM is not added together.

The 690 only has 2GB per GPU, which is not added together either.
 
skace said:
Well I run a 2560x1600 resolution 30" monitor right now. So more memory would be directly useful to me, I believe. Plus if I ever do SLI, I get the 8GB SLI versus the 690's limitation at 4GB.... And I do it without too much of a $ overhead. Not bad? I may need to watch where this goes a bit.
Click to expand...

That's not how SLI or Crossfire work, the same data is copied to both card's memory for rendering.

Still you are right, at that res you want more memory.

If you're open to the idea AMD's 7900 cards scale better than Nvidia at higher resolutions. They don't have that 4GB though and you'll probably have to over-clock them until the Ghz editions come out.
 
I understand that isn't how SLI works, sorry if that came across confusing - that is why the 4GB becomes more important in SLI.

And sorry, not interested in AMD cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top