GTX 670 4GB x2 vs. GTX 690 for 5760x1080

[socialdarwinist]

I'm interested in how significant of a limitation the 2GB on the 690 is at very large resolutions. Some information I've seen seems to indicate that 5760x1080 on ultra settings on the newest games ultimately bottlenecks at the 690's memory. While I know 680 4GB in 2x SLI would be a good improvement on the 690, I'm curious as to the tradeoff of clock/mem speed vs. the limited memory. Looking for informed opinions.

 

[toyota]

at the 690 launch 2gb was fine for 2560x1600 but already at the limits for 5760x1080. as of right now there are several games that can utilize over 2gb of vram at 2560 and will blow by that at 5760x1080. a $1000 video card with 2gb of vram is beyond silly at this point for ultra high resolutions.

I would wait for 780 and 770 to launch next week and the week after before you decide to go 670 sli though.

 

[socialdarwinist]

at the 690 launch 2gb was fine for 2560x1600 but already at the limits for 5760x1080. as of right now there are several games that can utilize over 2gb of vram at 2560 and will blow by that at 5760x1080. a $1000 video card with 2gb of vram is beyond silly at this point for ultra high resolutions.

I would wait for 780 and 770 to launch next week and the week after before you decide to go 670 sli though.

Yes, the 2GB memory does seem a bit strange given that the card still retails for $1000. I had heard the maximum memory was hit at 5760x1080 but didn't realize current games can max out on a single 2560x1600 display setup. This does alter my viewpoint a bit, as I anticipate gaming more frequently at 2560x1440 than at 5760x1080 due to some of the inherent complications of the multi-display high resolution setups, particularly with certain uncooperative games.

I'm very curious to see benchmarks of the new 780 and 770, but as a value proposition my situation is a bit different as I have the option of acquiring a new 690 for $600.

 

[bystander36]

Keep in mind there is a difference between "can" max out vram and "requires" more vram. In most if not all cases, just using slightly lowered settings removes any issue at those resolutions, which in the games it is an issue with, it is normally needed to get your FPS up near 60 anyway. I'd still go with the 4Gb 680's, but if you had a 690, I don't think you are going to have an issue either.

 

[blackened23]

Keep in mind there is a difference between "can" max out vram and "requires" more vram. In most if not all cases, just using slightly lowered settings removes any issue at those resolutions, which in the games it is an issue with, it is normally needed to get your FPS up near 60 anyway. I'd still go with the 4Gb 680's, but if you had a 690, I don't think you are going to have an issue either.

Exactly this. The biggest contributor to VRAM depletion is MSAA. FXAA rarely, actually scratch that -- FXAA never has an issue with eating up VRAM. If you use high MSAA settings in surround though, *that* is what will cause VRAM depletion issues. I can state that I play everything in WQHD x1440 or x1600 resolutions and I never have issues with VRAM with 2GB - the only thing that comes to mind is if I excessively mod a game or use OGSSAA - then one may pass 2GB. But in single screen resolutions, 2GB is fine.

If you're using surround resolutions, you can simply switch to FXAA and for the most part not have issues with VRAM - there is also a lot of anecdotal evidence for this if you view HardOCPs surround GTX 690 review. They benchmark everything at 5760*1080 and to date no games have failed due to VRAM, not a single one. Now obviously if you're using excessively high MSAA settings (which you would switch to FXAA) or using triple WQHD (triple 2560) monitors, you'll want more VRAM. Or if you absolutely positively must have the best IQ settings in surround, you can certainly make a compelling case for more VRAM there too.