GTX680 4GB Reviews

[Raghu]

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html

Much improved when the 2GB was hitting memory limits at 2560x1600.

 

[blackened23]

I don't think the performance increase was from memory, that board tested is a highly OC'ed version. Its odd that the highly OC'ed version is only 1-3% faster than the reference...Anyway....Generally, you will not run into issues with VRAM at single monitor resolutions up to 2560x1600. Its also strange that the 2GB version outperformed the 4GB version in many of those tests....

Anyway, VRAM shouldn't be a big issue at single monitor resolutions unless you pile on a ton of AA and/or user mods (such as skyrim mods) ---however with 3D surround resolutions such as 5760x1200, AA can be an issue which will cause you to run out of VRAM.. Nx AA costs you N * the framebuffer memory. So running 5760x1200 with no AA is only 82,944,000 bytes for the front and back buffers, and only 442M for the G-buffer. So at 5760x1200, You have ~520M for the presentation stuff, which leaves 1.5G for textures and characters..

So in summary, 4gb is absolutely beneficial for 3d surround. Single screen resolution? Not so much unless you really go overboard with AA. You can easily run out of VRAM at 5760x1200 if you go beyond FXAA for AA, and you will 100% run out of VRAM in most games if you use 4x MSAA at that resolution.

 

[exar333]

I don't think the performance increase was from memory, that board tested is a highly OC'ed version. Its odd that the highly OC'ed version is only 1-3% faster than the reference...Anyway....Generally, you will not run into issues with VRAM at single monitor resolutions up to 2560x1600. Its also strange that the 2GB version outperformed the 4GB version in many of those tests....

Anyway, VRAM shouldn't be a big issue at single monitor resolutions unless you pile on a ton of AA and/or user mods (such as skyrim mods) ---however with 3D surround resolutions such as 5760x1200, AA can be an issue which will cause you to run out of VRAM.. Nx AA costs you N * the framebuffer memory. So running 5760x1200 with no AA is only 82,944,000 bytes for the front and back buffers, and only 442M for the G-buffer. So at 5760x1200, You have ~520M for the presentation stuff, which leaves 1.5G for textures and characters.. (Honestly for 99% of games, you could probably get away with 2xAA and be fine at 5760x1200).

So in summary, 4gb is absolutely beneficial for 3d surround. Single screen resolution? Not so much unless you really go overboard with AA. You can easily run out of VRAM at 5760x1200 if you go beyond FXAA for AA, and you will 100% run out of VRAM in most games if you use 4x MSAA at that resolution.

Not sure if your serious here....

Looks more like ~15% over stock performance for most metrics.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html?start=17

 

[Jaydip]

Extra 2GB vram will add nothing to 680.It needs more memory bandwidth not necessarily more memory.

 

[KompuKare]

Skimming the article (too lazy to read a long article in German) the only improvements I saw was at SSAA:

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html?start=16

The Skyrim 1600P 8xSGSSAA 16xAF had a difference of of x20 (1.2FPS vs29.4FPS) but someone with better eyes than me would have to determine if there's any image quality difference between any of those sample screenshots because I cannot spot them in the stills (never mind in game)...

 

[blackened23]

Not sure if your serious here....

Looks more like ~15% over stock performance for most metrics.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html?start=17

I looked at all of the game benchmarks and the difference really was minimal, 2-3 fps in most games. I could be wrong, I just did a cursory glance at bf3 and a few other titles and saw very, very little difference between the stock 680 and the oc'ed zotac. I am not a fan of zotac anyway and would get asus over them.

example:

So is 3-4 fps really worth the 100$+ price premium the board carries? I'd say no - again , unless you run 5760x1200. Anyway, my entire point was that getting a 4gb GTX 680 is worthless unless you run 5760x1200. You will not have VRAM issues generally speaking.

 

[Jaydip]

Not sure if your serious here....

Looks more like ~15% over stock performance for most metrics.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html?start=17

I'm not sure how u came to that conclusion by looking @ those charts.

 

[exar333]

Extra 2GB vram will add nothing to 680.It needs more memory bandwidth not necessarily more memory.

This.

The article should have included maximum resolution reviews as well like 3x1080P or 2-3x 1600P to really tax the extra VRAM.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think all of us with a tiny bit of reality left knows that even 3GB is useless. So 4GB is just even more useless. Not to mention the 6GB card.

 

[blackened23]

I think all of us with a tiny bit of reality left knows that even 3GB is useless. So 4GB is just even more useless. Not to mention the 6GB card.

Useless unless you're playing at high IQ levels at 3d surround resolutions. Fixed for you.

But useless for 90% of PC users, yes, absolutely.

 

[Jaydip]

This.

The article should have included maximum resolution reviews as well like 3x1080P or 2-3x 1600P to really tax the extra VRAM.

Agreed.Actually i find it funny that sometimes the 4GB card trailed behind the stock 680

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Useless unless you're playing at high IQ levels at 3d surround resolutions. Fixed for you.

But useless for 99.9% of PC users, yes, absolutely.

Fixed

 

[exar333]

I'm not sure how u came to that conclusion by looking @ those charts.

B3 performance on OC 4GB = 53.4
Reference 680 OC = 49.7 (4GB OC is ~7.5% faster)
Reference 680 = 46.1 (4GB OC is ~16% faster)

Quote was 'Its odd that the highly OC'ed version is only 1-3% faster than the reference'...

 

[exar333]

Agreed.Actually i find it funny that sometimes the 4GB card trailed behind the stock 680

The GPU clock and memory speed/bandwidth is lower on the 4GB Jetsream vs. 2GB version.

1006mhz vs. 1084 (reference)
1502mhz vs. 1575mhz memory clock

Edit: Hmm. That is odd; the 4GB specs match the reference settings. Maybe higher-latency RAM?

 

[Jaydip]

B3 performance on OC 4GB = 53.4
Reference 680 OC = 49.7 (4GB OC is ~7.5% faster)
Reference 680 = 46.1 (4GB OC is ~16% faster)

Quote was 'Its odd that the highly OC'ed version is only 1-3% faster than the reference'...

Sorry man didn't see that :thumbsup:

 

[Jaydip]

The GPU clock and memory speed/bandwidth is lower on the 4GB Jetsream vs. 2GB version.

1006mhz vs. 1084 (reference)
1502mhz vs. 1575mhz memory clock

Edit: Hmm. That is odd; the 4GB specs match the reference settings. Maybe higher-latency RAM?

Or different vendor's ram.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Useless unless you're playing at high IQ levels at 3d surround resolutions. Fixed for you.

But useless for 90% of PC users, yes, absolutely.

That sounds wierd. I use the same VRAM if I play in 800*600 or in 3840*1200. Textures uses the same memory nomatter what resolution. So what should use the extra memory?

 

[KompuKare]

Maybe higher-latency RAM?

While it's always possible that they cheapened out on the RAM, it's equally like that the RAM controller has to run 4GB with at slower latencies than 2GB for stability reasons.

 

[blackened23]

That sounds wierd. I use the same VRAM if I play in 800*600 or in 3840*1200. Textures uses the same memory nomatter what resolution. So what should use the extra memory?

Like I said in my earlier post: AA is the reason. AA VRAM usage skyrockets at higher resolutions. Secondly, SGSSAA VRAM use is extremely high as well. If you try to use 4x-8x MSAA at 5760x1200 you will 100% run out of VRAM. The other thing is mods. Mods for GTA IV or skyrim can cause VRAM use to skyrocket. Again - such users are a minority , so for 90% of the population 2gb is more than fine.

Anyway, VRAM shouldn't be a big issue at single monitor resolutions unless you pile on a ton of AA and/or user mods (such as skyrim mods) ---however with 3D surround resolutions such as 5760x1200, AA can be an issue which will cause you to run out of VRAM.. Nx AA costs you N * the framebuffer memory. So running 5760x1200 with no AA is only 82,944,000 bytes for the front and back buffers, and only 442M for the G-buffer. So at 5760x1200, You have ~520M for the presentation stuff, which leaves 1.5G for textures and characters..

 

[exar333]

Like I said in my earlier post: AA is the reason. AA VRAM usage skyrockets at higher resolutions. Secondly, SGSSAA VRAM use is extremely high as well. If you try to use 4x-8x MSAA at 5760x1200 you will 100% run out of VRAM. The other thing is mods. Mods for GTA IV or skyrim can cause VRAM use to skyrocket.

I definitely agree that users requiring the 4GB are a VERY slim minority. That said, those willing to pay an extra $100 just for the extra VRAM probably plan to SLI these for 2-3x1600P. Definitely a niche market for sure.

 

[ShintaiDK]

According to your quote. Then the same memory limit would apply at a lower resolution. So I still dont see why you need alot of memory for highres.

Also these doesnt seem to comply with your memory need either. So 3-6GB vs 2GB is just a stupidity tax.

Or this with BF3:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/12/22/amd_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/9

 

[blackened23]

Jesus christ. The size of the backbuffer and intermediate buffers become very significant at higher resolutions. So basically 5760 * 1200 * 4 bytes (per sample) * 8 (samples per pixel) = 221,184,000 bytes per back and front buffer. There is one front buffer and two back buffers, so 663,552,000 bytes just for your frame buffer.

In deferred renderers (which are common) it's even worse. GBuffers are huge, but generally not double buffered. A gbuffer from a modern game is 64 bytes per sample, but you don't need to double buffer it. So 5760*1200*64*8 = 3.5 Gigs. Plus the 663 megs from above and you're already at 4.1 gigs.

I'll say this again :

Nx AA costs you N * the framebuffer memory.

So running 5760x1200 with no AA is only 82,944,000 bytes for the front and back buffers, and only 442M for the G-buffer.

I have NO IDEA why you seem so offended, just go back to the math. AS I SAID 2GB IS FINE FOR 99% OF USERS.

 

[boxleitnerb]

SGSSAA uses the exact same amount of VRAM as MSAA. I discussed the outcome of the article with the author and I cannot understand how 2GB are not enough in vanilla Skyrim at only 2560x1600. I have not seen one other review where any 2GB card plummeted so far down in this game.

 

[Jaydip]

According to your quote. Then the same memory limit would apply at a lower resolution. So I still dont see why you need alot of memory for highres.

Also these doesnt seem to comply with your memory need either. So 3-6GB vs 2GB is just a stupidity tax.

Or this with BF3:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/12/22/amd_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/9

U may need it if u apply absurd amount of AA.

 

[Elfear]

U may need it if u apply absurd amount of AA.

Not sure what you consider absurd but I showed >2GB of vram usage at 4xMSAA and some mods in Skyrim. Blackened23 is right that for 90% of gamers 2GB is just fine but more than that isn't stupid if you game at high resolutions with max eye candy.