Gtx 680 sli 2gig upgrade to 780 sli...please help me decide!!!!!

[dropdead777]

I currently have 2 gtx 680 2gig..3770k...16gig ram playing at 2560x1600 and thinking about upgrading to 780's. I wanted some opinions if I should or not. My only concern is vram when new games like BF4 come out. I just want to be able play at 50-60fps smoothly without any issues. Should I sell my gtx 680's while they still have some value think like 200-300 on ebay so maybe like 400 after ebay fees etc?? So, I will be out like $900 for the upgrade. I really want 60fps in bf4 and the only game currently that brings my cards down at 1600p is crysis 3. Please help me decide to sell or keep and wait for 800 series.

 

[thilanliyan]

If you have the cash and want to spend it on gaming, go for it. It would be a noticeable increase I'm sure. In your shoes I might wait until AMD's and nVidia's next gen products are released. Your cards are not slow.

 

[BrightCandle]

BF4 isn't going to magically make your 680's obsolete. The 680's are still great cards and your only really looking at another +30% performance from the 780 upgrade. That IMO isn't worth the vast expense. Whenever we get a tweak card that is marginally faster on the same process its the same problem, but the real jump will be coming next year with the jump to a new process.

Its not worth the upgrade, you might have to turn a graphics option down to get your constant 60 fps but that doesn't really matter, because you will be better off next year when you have a more modern card rather than buying an old one late in the cycle.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

It's better knowing how your cards do by reviews first before you spend the money then regret it if it's not up to your expectations..

Wait till the game comes out.

 

[moonbogg]

You could get the 780's now, but what if they still aren't enough to blast BF4 into the 60fps+ range maxed out at your high res? That sound risky to me, but if you got lots of extra money and don't care, the i'm sure you will benefit from the extra Vram more than anything else. BF4 will suck 2gb totally dry at your res, that much I promise you. I'm expecting to be in trouble with 2gb at 1080p with that game.

 

[Carfax83]

I think people are really exaggerating the next generation game VRAM requirements.

There's a big difference between requiring more than 2GB of VRAM, and being capable of using more than 2GB of VRAM.

I don't think BF4 will "require" more than 2GB of VRAM, but it will certainly use more than 2GB if it's available..

I've seen Bioshock Infinite use over 3GB of VRAM on my machine, but before I upgraded to GTX 770 4GB SLI, I had overclocked GTX 580 SLI with 1.5GB and I played Bioshock Infinite and beat it using the exact same settings with a very comfortable frame rate for the most part.

So evidently, while Bioshock Infinite may use more than 1.5GB, it doesn't need it. The extra usage most likely comes from preloading and caching game assets, which could smoothen out your frame rate a bit and make the game load faster, but it's not imperative for actual performance.

I expect BF4 to be the same. If anything, BF4 will push system RAM more than VRAM as it will be 64 bit.

 

[3DVagabond]

Don't do it. By the time you really need more than 2gig of RAM newer cards and/or lower prices will be available.

 

[BrightCandle]

I think people are really exaggerating the next generation game VRAM requirements.

I have to agree. The evidence in reviews is strongly against needing more VRAM in todays games except in very particular circumstances. The PS4 might have a vast amount of potential VRAM but that does not mean that the GPU has either the bandwidth nor the computing performance to utilize it. The next gen consoles are basically current gen mid range cards. If anything I think people will be disappointed that console games only come to what a PC was capable of for the last 2 years instead of surpassing it, which it obviously never would based on the specs.

 

[Lavans]

I have to agree. The evidence in reviews is strongly against needing more VRAM in todays games except in very particular circumstances. The PS4 might have a vast amount of potential VRAM but that does not mean that the GPU has either the bandwidth nor the computing performance to utilize it. The next gen consoles are basically current gen mid range cards. If anything I think people will be disappointed that console games only come to what a PC was capable of for the last 2 years instead of surpassing it, which it obviously never would based on the specs.

I don't think people will be disappointed per say. There has never once, in the history of gaming, been a console that was better than a high end PC at he time of its release. The majority of people who are planning on buying a PS4 on release are most likely going to be console gamers, not PC gamers. The audience's reaction to the UE4 Elemental Demo comparing PS4 and PC was generally positive, even though the PS4 version didn't have GI or tessellation. This goes to show that console gamers will likely be quite pleased with what's being presented on the PS4. Also, as the console ages, developers will be put in a position to find more efficient and new rendering methods to keep their games up to date. Look at the first generation of PS3 games and compare them to the games we're getting today (Beyond Two Souls, The Last Of Us, Metal Gear Solid 5). Regardless, the real technical advantage of consoles is that it'll finally raise the universal graphical standard, and in turn, hopefully lower development costs for high fidelity graphics. That being said, I'm sure developers will find a way to make use of the huge pool of memory the PS4 is sporting under the hood.

 

[moonbogg]

I think people are really exaggerating the next generation game VRAM requirements.

There's a big difference between requiring more than 2GB of VRAM, and being capable of using more than 2GB of VRAM.

I don't think BF4 will "require" more than 2GB of VRAM, but it will certainly use more than 2GB if it's available..

I didn't mean require and should have clarified. The game will probably run on 1gb cards cranked to low. What I am saying, is I expect to play BF4 at 1080p, maxed out with 4xAA and to see the occasional hitch and skip, possibly some other lag issues due to lack of Vram.
This happened to BF3 with my GTX 570's. Everyone screamed that 1.2gb was enough for the game and that it didn't need more, but it could use more etc etc. They were wrong. The game had issues (when maxed) due to lack of Vram.
If I can't max it without a little skip here and there due to Vram, then as far as I am concerned, that game REQUIRES more than 2gb.

 

[blackened23]

Next generation games will definitely require more VRAM. Technically speaking, BF4 isn't a next generation game - the baseline for development is still actually the xbox 360 and the PS3. Sure, the PS4 and XB1 versions will have higher framerates but it won't be using features specific to those consoles.

Now if you look at games like Titan's Fall, Kill Zone, and Destiny - these games are, without a shadow of a doubt, using higher resolution textures and larger assets than any prior xbox 360 and PS3 games. And before jumps in with some blurry youtube screenshot, you can't really judge games that way - you can make any game look absolutely craptastic by using youtube as a source. But seeing Titan's Fall in motion - it looks pretty incredible. The textures are high res and sharp, and yes - next generation games will definitely use more VRAM.

It will take some time for the transition, however - many games initially will still be cross platformed with the 360 and PS3. That means that development will focus on those machines and the only benefits will be higher framerates and more eye candy, while textures, etc remain the same.

 

[BrightCandle]

Hmm if your intention is to max it out with 4x AA then I suspect strongly you will need a hardware upgrade. I can't max out a lot of games at 1080p with 4xAA with my pair of 680's so I doubt a game as heavy as BF4 will maintain 60 fps under such a high resolution. Whether any hardware can truly max it out is questionable, it might be impossible without triple SLI titans and even potentially not then.

Until its released however you can't really determine what the hardware need will be.

 

[2is]

I'm expecting to be in trouble with 2gb at 1080p with that game.

Highly unlikely. Graphics seem close to identical with more emphasis on destruction than BF3 which translates into more of a CPU load. BF3 scales its VRAM usage depending on how much VRAM is available to it. Just because you see BF3 using 1.7 GB out of 2 doesn't mean BF4 is going to need more than that.

 

[bystander36]

I guess the issue is whether or not you consider a game not completely maxed out fun to play. I personally would much rather turn down AA settings or other non essential settings and not get to worked up about it, then going out and getting another marginal upgrade.

I've done it before, and it was a silly waist of money. If the game is good, a few more jaggies is not a big deal.

 

[2is]

Hmm if your intention is to max it out with 4x AA then I suspect strongly you will need a hardware upgrade. I can't max out a lot of games at 1080p with 4xAA with my pair of 680's so I doubt a game as heavy as BF4 will maintain 60 fps under such a high resolution. Whether any hardware can truly max it out is questionable, it might be impossible without triple SLI titans and even potentially not then.

Until its released however you can't really determine what the hardware need will be.

What games can't you max out? I have a pair of 680s and maxed out with 4xaa @ 1200p is exactly how I play all of them.

 

[blackened23]

I guess the issue is whether or not you consider a game not completely maxed out fun to play. I personally would much rather turn down AA settings or other non essential settings and not get to worked up about it, then going out and getting another marginal upgrade.

I've done it before, and it was a silly waist of money. If the game is good, a few more jaggies is not a big deal.

Completely agreed. When you can't max a few select games out with a GTX Titan, something is wrong. You can either throw 1000$ more at the problem - or if you're more rational, you can simply lower to FXAA and lower 1 setting and maintain 60 fps solidly throughout your gameplay experience.

"Maxing" games out has become increasingly stupid in recent years. Back in the 299$ Voodoo II or Geforce 256 days, your limit was the sky in terms of resolution and graphics options, and you could max anything out regardless of resolution. Now, when you need 1500-2000$ in GPU power to max something out? Yeah, eff that. Maybe for surround, I could see that cost being justified...but for 1080p/1440p...nah. Especially when lowering 1-2 settings in the game doesn't result in any graphical difference.......

Oh, and as far as my suggestion to the OP: if you're not seeing a stop sign in front of you at this point in terms of game play-ability, why rush into an upgrade? On one hand, waiting to upgrade will only benefit you - GTX 780 prices will go down most likely, and better aftermarket cards will be released. On the other hand, the earlier you sell your 680s, the better the re-sale value will be. So that actually makes it a tough call, to be honest. If you can sell them for a relatively small loss i'd say go for it. But if you have issues with re-sale it may be better to wait until this fall.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I would wait (I am). At 1440p I don't feel gimped with sli 670s and I turn every game to max except aa. If you need lots of aa to be happy then you might need more but I would still try to hold out a bit and see what happens.