• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

This generation of nVidia's GTX 680/670 is a pass.

FalseChristian

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,322
0
71
The GTX 680 isn't much faster than my 2 overclocked GTX 460 1GB in SLI. I'm gonna wait and see what the the GTX 760 has to offer. This is by far the longest time I've kept any GPUs. The GTX 460 1GB is still a beast of a card.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
18
81
The GTX 680 isn't much faster than my 2 overclocked GTX 460 1GB in SLI. I'm gonna wait and see what the the GTX 760 has to offer. This is by far the longest time I've kept any GPUs. The GTX 460 1GB is still a beast of a card.
Yeah that's a powerful setup. I just hated running out of vram with my 768mb cards. Those 256mb of vram were more important than I thought.

You know what, though, the 7850 overclocked is about as powerful as the 460s but you don't have any of the downfalls of a dual card setup. I would recommend it if you can get $80-100 for each of your 460s.
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
It all depends what you need.

Pretty sure your cards won't render anything at 2560x1600 in any of today's games, and even 1920x1080 would be a struggle.
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
474
126
For your resolution, the gtx460s in SLI make sense. In rig I needed the Horsepower and Vram for 3 monitors.
 

FalseChristian

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,322
0
71
It all depends what you need.

Pretty sure your cards won't render anything at 2560x1600 in any of today's games, and even 1920x1080 would be a struggle.
In my OP you'll see I'm running at a resolution of 1680x1050. My setup is plenty powerful for this resolution, no?
 

Puppies04

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2011
5,909
14
76
It all depends what you need.

Pretty sure your cards won't render anything at 2560x1600 in any of today's games, and even 1920x1080 would be a struggle.
This, plus you have to mess around waiting for games to sort out their SLI patches. Give me a single card any day of the week.

But as JAG said, it all depends what you need. Each to their own.
 

chimaxi83

Diamond Member
May 18, 2003
5,648
61
101
Well of course this opinion is subjective to your resolution, games you play, and settings you like to play at. At 1680, I agree with you. Anything above that with decent level of detail, and that setup will struggle, depending on the game.
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
In my OP you'll see I'm running at a resolution of 1680x1050. My setup is plenty powerful for this resolution, no?
Of course, but your opening title reads like a fact. Next time add "for me", after "is a pass".

Also, considering single gpu solutions that perform the same and use less power do exist, I would get off SLI as soon as possible like someone recommended already.
 

kami

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
17,627
4
81
460 SLI is about on par with a single 580, not a 680. In your case I would definitely upgrade the monitor before video card.
 

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
What is the purpose of this thread?
For a meaningful discussion and validation of OP's needs?

@OP for 1050p anything more than his DUAL GTX 460 is overkill... only consider upgrading when you get a new monitor at 1200p or higher or go multi display...:D
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
What is the purpose of this thread?
The purpose of this thread appears to be that a computer that was hugely overpowered when it was new is still sufficient to run current games two years later at an outdated resolution. As far as I'm concerned, the OP is 100% incorrect. I've been using a 1920x1200 monitor for over 5 years, and my last video card (an HD5870) was insufficient to run Skyrim at ultra settings with mods installed because of VRAM limitations (which neither crossfire nor SLI would address). I upgraded to a GTX 680 and now I can run everything (Skyrim, BF3, Batman, Crysis, Alan Wake, etc.) at ultra settings at 1920x1200 with a combination of AF and AA at playable FPS levels.

For mid-level gaming, of course you don't need the latest or greatest graphics card; you never have. But if you're interested in running multi-monitor or super-high-resolution monitors with all the eye candy turned up to get the absolute maximum IQ out of today's games, an SLI GTX 460 rig simply will not cut it. At the enthusiast level, there's nothing available that counts as overkill, which is why you see people flaunting their 6 GHz overclocks and quadfire 7970 setups feeding 6 monitors in eyefinity.
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
0
76
Not to mention this is the first time that Nvidia (or anyone) has locked out voltage control on it's high-end buyers. 8800/9800/280/285/480/580 each had software voltage registers that could be user defined in a lookup table. Now they've gone out of their way to make sure you cannot do this "trick" on their high end 670,680 & 690. Such a shame.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
745
126
But if you're interested in running multi-monitor or super-high-resolution monitors with all the eye candy turned up to get the absolute maximum IQ out of today's games, an SLI GTX 460 rig simply will not cut it. At the enthusiast level, there's nothing available that counts as overkill, which is why you see people flaunting their 6 GHz overclocks and quadfire 7970 setups feeding 6 monitors in eyefinity.
All of that is true. However, it changes nothing about the fact that since Crysis 1, there hasn't been a single game out in the last 5 years that has redefined PC gaming graphics. People will always find the need for new hardware (i.e., 120 FPS, 3D gaming, e-peen, hobby, fun of upgrading, etc.) or justify $2-3K of hardware. However, it's been a long time on the PC where we have been blown away by a GPU upgrade. I remember the first time I ran Crysis on an 8800GTS 320mb I was amazed at how much better the game looked than anything else at the time. I actually wanted a new GPUs because the game was choking at just 1280x1024 and there was no way to turn up the graphical details, nevermind play it for me at native 1080P. Now, it's more about turning on Uber Sampling, depth of field, or more AA but the games don't look better than Crysis 1. Look at many modern games today, even when you change the settings from Very High to Ultra, the graphics barely change but performance falls dramatically.

Sure, 2560x1600 monitor does make games look sharper than a 1680x1050 or even 1080P monitor but it doesn't make them much better looking. The actual lighting, texture, AI and physics model has barely advanced since 2007 (I suppose tessellation and HBAO/SSAO did add a little extra).

What we need are next generation game engines such as Unreal Engine 4. Until then, all the extra AA, resolutions is just putting lipstick on a pig. Since Crysis 1 and Metro 2033, PC gaming graphics have completely stagnated. Even BF3 is nothing special at all in terms of graphics.

People will even buy GTX780 next year but it won't make Crysis 2 or BF3 look any better because gaming graphics have stagnated thanks to consoles.







People will buy new GPUs because it's our hobby. However, nowadays it hardly has any impact on graphics because the graphics themselves are stuck in the year 2008.

I am almost in disbelief now that Crysis 1 came out Nov 13, 2007 and in 5 years since then PC graphics have hardly improved.
 
Last edited:

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
All of that is true. However, it changes nothing about the fact that since Crysis 1, there hasn't been a single game out in the last 5 years that has redefined PC gaming graphics. People will always find the need for new hardware (i.e., 120 FPS, 3D gaming, etc.). However, it's been a long time on the PC where we were truly marvelled by a GPU upgrade. Now, it's more about turning on Uber Sampling, depth of field, or more AA. Look at many games, even when you change the settings from Very High to Ultra, the graphics barely change but performance falls dramatically.

Sure, 2560x1600 monitor does make games look sharper than a 1680x1050 or even 1080P monitor but it doesn't make them much better looking. What we need are next generation game engines such as Unreal Engine 4. Until then, all the extra AA, resolutions is just putting lipstick on a pig. Since Crysis 1 and even Metro 2033, PC gaming graphics have been completely flat. Even BF3 is nothing special at all.

People will even buy GTX780 next year but it won't make Crysis 2 or BF3 look any better because gaming graphics have stagnated thanks to consoles.
Two words: Ray Tracing.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
18
81
So yes, while people will buy new GPUs because it's our hobby, but it hardly has any impact on graphics because the graphics themselves are stuck in the year 2008.
Yeah except in 2008 about the best you could do would be to run that game on "high" settings at 720p with no AA.

Crysis was way ahead of its time graphically, more so than any game in history that I can remember.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,840
280
126
The purpose of this thread appears to be that a computer that was hugely overpowered when it was new is still sufficient to run current games two years later at an outdated resolution. As far as I'm concerned, the OP is 100% incorrect. I've been using a 1920x1200 monitor for over 5 years, and my last video card (an HD5870) was insufficient to run Skyrim at ultra settings with mods installed because of VRAM limitations (which neither crossfire nor SLI would address). I upgraded to a GTX 680 and now I can run everything (Skyrim, BF3, Batman, Crysis, Alan Wake, etc.) at ultra settings at 1920x1200 with a combination of AF and AA at playable FPS levels.

For mid-level gaming, of course you don't need the latest or greatest graphics card; you never have. But if you're interested in running multi-monitor or super-high-resolution monitors with all the eye candy turned up to get the absolute maximum IQ out of today's games, an SLI GTX 460 rig simply will not cut it. At the enthusiast level, there's nothing available that counts as overkill, which is why you see people flaunting their 6 GHz overclocks and quadfire 7970 setups feeding 6 monitors in eyefinity.
Hit it right on the head. My GTX295 was similar. For 3 years or more it was fine. Then along comes Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3, and Skyrim...not quite enough.

Even BF3 is nothing special at all in terms of graphics.


I am almost in disbelief now that Crysis 1 came out Nov 13, 2007 and in 5 years since then PC graphics have hardly improved.
I would argue that Battlefield 3 looks tons better than Crysis 1. There are many parts of the game that are borderline photo realistic. I have never felt that Crysis breaks away from the perception I have when playing that "this is a game". Battlefield sometimes blurs that line just a bit.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,840
280
126
How can a small developer with limited funds make something like this:
Project Cars

But developers with billions of dollars make this and sell millions of copies:
Black Ops II

:'(
There's a reason the developer with billions of dollars has billions of dollars. Advertising and marketing. Make every 14 year old want it and all their friends will fall in line with them.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Last edited:

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
How can a small developer with limited funds make something like this:
Project Cars

But developers with billions of dollars make this and sell millions of copies:
Black Ops II

:'(
Sadly, because popular PC games are gimped by their focus on the console versions which likely make publishers far more money.

I just want the next generation of consoles to come along, as my 6950 feels underutilized. I'm never going to game on more than one monitor or insane 2560x1600 resolutions...
 

turn_pike

Senior member
Mar 4, 2012
316
0
71
How can a small developer with limited funds make something like this:
Project Cars
:'(
Actually most of the time it is the small developers who are pushing the limits of graphic cards.

Crytek with Far Cry and Crysis
RED Project with Witcher 2
4A with Metro 2033

It seems to me that large companies have to cater to their stockholder's need instead of their fanbase. I.e. lower graphical detail = lower system requirements = their games will be playable by more people = more profit with less risk
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY