670 vs 680?

[kim31227]

Ok, so I have 2 questions here.

I'm SURE now that I'll be getting either the:

MSI 670 Power Edition

or the

MSI 680 Lightning.

I'm going to get these cards for EITHER:

Two 1920 x 1080 monitors

or

One 2560 x 1440 monitor.

I'm leaning towards the 670 because lots of people say that there is only a small difference performance between the 670 and the 680 but a big price difference. I don't mind forking over the money if it actually is going to help a lot (performance wise) on either my two 1920x1080 or one 2560x1440 monitor.

Thanks for all your help!

 

[MrC4]

The 670 should be fine for your system. If you are gaming on the twin 1080Ps, then you may want the 680 instead (though 2 monitors would be an odd gaming configuration).

 

[one swell foop]

I say, get the 680. It will help future proof your system, unless you're fine with selling the 670 later on and getting something newer when you need it. I tend to buy hardware and keep it until it dies or I refresh my entire system, a few years down the road. With the resolutions you're looking at, if you can swing a 4gb 680, it should help you run that card for some time to come. I am fairly certain that, in tests at higher resolutinos like 2650x1440, that 4gb of video ram has been shown to help out. At lower resolutions, it's overkill, but if you want to max out some of the more demanding games at that res, the more speed and vram you have, the better.

 

[hdgamer]

I say, get the 680. It will help future proof your system, unless you're fine with selling the 670 later on and getting something newer when you need it. I tend to buy hardware and keep it until it dies or I refresh my entire system, a few years down the road. With the resolutions you're looking at, if you can swing a 4gb 680, it should help you run that card for some time to come. I am fairly certain that, in tests at higher resolutinos like 2650x1440, that 4gb of video ram has been shown to help out. At lower resolutions, it's overkill, but if you want to max out some of the more demanding games at that res, the more speed and vram you have, the better.

How the hell do you future proof a computer system? LOL.

 

[hdgamer]

Get one 1440P monitor and a 670. Best set up with less stress. When the 670 becomes too slow, sell it and upgrade to the current gen. I have a 1600P monitor and I'm sold now on buying two midrange cards vs one high end. When running sli (not crossfire), I don't seem to suffer from all the microstutter people complain about, and most of the games if not all that I play now support multi-gpu. Also two 660ti blow away a 680 at 1600p in almost all games I have played. So for me in the future this is the way to go when gaming at higher resolutions.

Basically I could care less about what the skyrim mod snobs say about needing gobs of vram and how certain games "like" more vram, if I have to, I just turn down a setting or two.

 

[one swell foop]

How the hell do you future proof a computer system? LOL.

Buy things that have enough power to last through a couple of hardware cycles and still perform relatively well? See processor listed in sig?

I mean, sure, if you have that kind of disposable income, buy the newest and most powerful thing every time something new and more powerful comes out. Most folks can't afford to do that.

 

[one swell foop]

Get one 1440P monitor and a 670. Best set up with less stress. When the 670 becomes too slow, sell it and upgrade to the current gen. I have a 1600P monitor and I'm sold now on buying two midrange cards vs one high end. When running sli (not crossfire), I don't seem to suffer from all the microstutter people complain about, and most of the games if not all that I play now support multi-gpu. Also two 660ti blow away a 680 at 1600p in almost all games I have played. So for me in the future this is the way to go when gaming at higher resolutions.

Basically I could care less about what the skyrim mod snobs say about needing gobs of vram and how certain games "like" more vram, if I have to, I just turn down a setting or two.

Except that I'm pretty sure, in their testing, [H] recommended on bard with 4gb of vram rather than two card with 2gb for high res gaming. Just sayin.

 

[hdgamer]

Buy things that have enough power to last through a couple of hardware cycles and still perform relatively well? See processor listed in sig?

I mean, sure, if you have that kind of disposable income, buy the newest and most powerful thing every time something new and more powerful comes out. Most folks can't afford to do that.

So people that bought a 4 gig vram GTX680 to "future proof" their systems last year are able to play Crysis 3 at max settings this year? I heard Crysis 3 eats up Vram too. LOL

Yeah I'm being a smart-ass but I'm making a point. There's no futureproofing. Go for what you can afford. I tend to like 2 midrange cards now for my 1600p monitor because it's faster than 1 high end expensive card and costs about the same or just a little more.

 

[hdgamer]

Except that I'm pretty sure, in their testing, [H] recommended on bard with 4gb of vram rather than two card with 2gb for high res gaming. Just sayin.

I don't think so. Two 660ti's in SLI destroy a 4 gig GTX680 in just about everything that supports mult-gpu configurations. Even with multi-monitor setups.

 

[doug_7506]

Get one 1440P monitor and a 670. Best set up with less stress. When the 670 becomes too slow, sell it and upgrade to the current gen. I have a 1600P monitor and I'm sold now on buying two midrange cards vs one high end. When running sli (not crossfire), I don't seem to suffer from all the microstutter people complain about, and most of the games if not all that I play now support multi-gpu. Also two 660ti blow away a 680 at 1600p in almost all games I have played. So for me in the future this is the way to go when gaming at higher resolutions.

Basically I could care less about what the skyrim mod snobs say about needing gobs of vram and how certain games "like" more vram, if I have to, I just turn down a setting or two.

I run a overclocked 670 and 1440p monitor. Without a doubt, there are some games that when set to high stress this out (Crysis 3 will kill a 670 at this res.). But IMO, I couldn't justify the extra $100 for the 680 from the 670. I think its about 25% more $$ for 10% more performance..

If you go the two monitor route, and only game on one (idk know how you would game on just two monitors) than a 670 is plenty for now.

 

[one swell foop]

So people that bought a 4 gig vram GTX680 to "future proof" their systems last year are able to play Crysis 3 at max settings this year? I heard Crysis 3 eats up Vram too. LOL

Yeah I'm being a smart-ass but I'm making a point. There's no futureproofing.

So, no one should ever think ahead. I see. By your logic I should have just bought a GTX570 instead of waiting three weeks and getting a 670, which is more able to handle the games i want to play as the native resolution of my monitor, and will be more effective for a longer period of time. Who cares if I'll be unhappy and need to spend more money to upgrade sooner than I would have otherwise!

Isn't it fun when we all take things to the logical extreme!
I'm not sure what exactly you think future proofing means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Fooshnik]

670 is fine for 1440p. Chances are if a game won't run at max settings on a 670, it won't run at max on a 680.

 

[hdgamer]

So, no one should ever think ahead. I see. By your logic I should have just bought a GTX570 instead of waiting three weeks and getting a 670, which is more able to handle the games i want to play as the native resolution of my monitor, and will be more effective for a longer period of time. Who cares if I'll be unhappy and need to spend more money to upgrade sooner than I would have otherwise!

Isn't it fun when we all take things to the logical extreme!
I'm not sure what exactly you think future proofing means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

So are you saying that people who bought a 3 gig vram GTX580 back in 2011 future proofed their computer so they can play Crysis 3 at high settings at high resolutions? My point is there is no futureproofing and buying a higher vram card to future proof is bullshit. I hate when people spread that misinformation around having people waste money like that. It's the gpu horsepower that makes the card. Either it can run it now, or it can't. Games in the future will always demand more power and more vram, but without the power, the vram is useless.

 

[one swell foop]

So are you saying that people who bought a 3 gig vram GTX580 back in 2011 future proofed their computer so they can play Crysis 3 at high settings at high resolutions? My point is there is no futureproofing and buying a higher vram card to future proof is bullshit. I hate when people spread that misinformation around having people waste money like that. It's the gpu horsepower that makes the card. Either it can run it now, or it can't. Games in the future will always demand more power and more vram, but without the power, the vram is useless.

Oh, obviously that's exactly what I'm saying! Thank you so much for putting the words I completely forgot to say during my well spoken statement into my mouth! The better, bigger, and faster the card is, the longer it will be able to run programs that require a lot of power. I am unsure what part of that confuses you. it';s pretty obvious that you're being willfully obtuse. As long as we're citing examples that are extreme to the point of being stupid: I don't care how much GPU horsepower a card has, at this point, if it only has 512 megs of ram on it, it's going to suffer. A card with the same horsepower and more vram will do better.

Your argument is, apparently, that a GTX 670 or 680 4gb will yield no substantial benefit over a 2gb version of the same in terms of game play-ability at high resolutions over the next year to a year and a half. I stay that's idiotic.

Someone may choose not to play games that take advantage of the larger amount of ram on the card, but, with this being an enthusiast forum, I'm gonna guess that the guy's not just playing angry birds the whole time. After I bought my card I continued to look at reviews and, in high resolution gaming situations, when playing games like skyrim with the texture mods and video settings ramped up, the 4gb card simply performed better at higher settings. Unless you are contending that game makers with products coming out in the future aren't going to provide better quality textures and higher settings that will use that extra ram, i have no f'ing idea what you're basing all of this on aside from a mistaken interpretation of what future proofing means.

 

[Ajiki-kun]

hdgamer isn't saying something stupid like 1GB of VRAM or whatever is sufficient. The general idea is that 2GB is the standard on nVidia's high-end cards because most if not all AAA titles don't need any more than that, and, if and where need be, case-by-case driver optimizations reduce the need for more than such, or cap it outright so that there's no crash from hitting the VRAM wall.

Obviously, this won't be the case next year, when new games will be coded for whatever nVidia's selling, since the buyers/owners of the new cards would be the growing (or even dominant) demographic of enthusiast consumers. But at that point, we won't likely be saying "my performance sucks because X game uses too much VRAM," and more like "my GPU is old horse shit".

This has happened before, and he gave a fair example. The 480s and 580s were super-high memory bandwidth and memory size, that today sit mostly unused because the cards draw so much power yet come with performance on the lines of today's 660 or so. The horsepower simply just does not match the memory.

Not many people are patting themselves on the back today for having gotten a 580 3GB, unless they were absolutely positive in December 2011 that they would not be getting a 670. In which case, they "win" the futureproofing argument, and I wish I had their ability to be satisfied with less.

 

[JayJapanB]

Oh, obviously that's exactly what I'm saying! Thank you so much for putting the words I completely forgot to say during my well spoken statement into my mouth! The better, bigger, and faster the card is, the longer it will be able to run programs that require a lot of power. I am unsure what part of that confuses you. it';s pretty obvious that you're being willfully obtuse. As long as we're citing examples that are extreme to the point of being stupid: I don't care how much GPU horsepower a card has, at this point, if it only has 512 megs of ram on it, it's going to suffer. A card with the same horsepower and more vram will do better.

Your argument is, apparently, that a GTX 670 or 680 4gb will yield no substantial benefit over a 2gb version of the same in terms of game play-ability at high resolutions over the next year to a year and a half. I stay that's idiotic.

Someone may choose not to play games that take advantage of the larger amount of ram on the card, but, with this being an enthusiast forum, I'm gonna guess that the guy's not just playing angry birds the whole time. After I bought my card I continued to look at reviews and, in high resolution gaming situations, when playing games like skyrim with the texture mods and video settings ramped up, the 4gb card simply performed better at higher settings. Unless you are contending that game makers with products coming out in the future aren't going to provide better quality textures and higher settings that will use that extra ram, i have no f'ing idea what you're basing all of this on aside from a mistaken interpretation of what future proofing means.

Future proofing is all up to what you are willing to spend along with what performance you are willing to enjoy/put up with.
I have never had issues with texture/object mods with skyrim at quad hd.
Vram doesn't give higher framerates unless you bottom out completely.

My point is there is no futureproofing

Cases and high reliable psu's
Watercooling fittings, rads and pumps.

670 is fine for 1440p. Chances are if a game won't run at max settings on a 670, it won't run at max on a 680.

This. Though given my experience I would take a 680 over a 4gb 670 any day.

 

[John Stamos]

You guys are arguing in a spammer thread.

 

[one swell foop]

hdgamer isn't saying something stupid like 1GB of VRAM or whatever is sufficient. The general idea is that 2GB is the standard on nVidia's high-end cards because most if not all AAA titles don't need any more than that, and, if and where need be, case-by-case driver optimizations reduce the need for more than such, or cap it outright so that there's no crash from hitting the VRAM wall.

That's exactly what he's been saying, unless he gets to play by different rules in this thread than I do. He has been consistently taking the things I've said to the logical extreme and then criticizing what I've said on that basis. He then made an unqualified statement, which I called him on.

Obviously, this won't be the case next year, when new games will be coded for whatever nVidia's selling, since the buyers/owners of the new cards would be the growing (or even dominant) demographic of enthusiast consumers. But at that point, we won't likely be saying "my performance sucks because X game uses too much VRAM," and more like "my GPU is old horse shit".

I never said old hardware would be optimal, just that it would be more capable at the higher end than the lower. That's why I'm stil able to use the processor I have in my machine without issue. I'll likely upgrade on Intel's next cycle, but what I have has served me well. Were it more of a mid level chip, I would have had to upgrade by now.

This has happened before, and he gave a fair example. The 480s and 580s were super-high memory bandwidth and memory size, that today sit mostly unused because the cards draw so much power yet come with performance on the lines of today's 660 or so. The horsepower simply just does not match the memory.

I think that generation was a miscalculation on nvidia's part as to where games were going and what the market wanted and I didn't buy into that generation for reasons, including that I purchased well enough the generation before that I did not need to.

Not many people are patting themselves on the back today for having gotten a 580 3GB, unless they were absolutely positive in December 2011 that they would not be getting a 670. In which case, they "win" the futureproofing argument, and I wish I had their ability to be satisfied with less.

If you buy at the right balance between price point and power and the hardware lasts you through one more generation without you needing to upgrade, I count that as a win. You don't have to know what's coming in order to buy the best you can afford and project the rise in required system resources over a coming medium term period of time.

 

[yelsewshane]

A 8800gt will still run games at 1080 being the majority of games are just console ports anyways.

 

[Ultima99]

A 8800gt will still run games at 1080 being the majority of games are just console ports anyways.

Yeah, no benefit to having anything better than an 8800....

 

[one swell foop]

A 8800gt will still run games at 1080 being the majority of games are just console ports anyways.

4 months here and trolling already...

 

[hdgamer]

That's exactly what he's been saying, unless he gets to play by different rules in this thread than I do. He has been consistently taking the things I've said to the logical extreme and then criticizing what I've said on that basis. He then made an unqualified statement, which I called him on.

That's not what I was saying. Ajiki-kun pretty much hit my point dead on man. If you want to tell people to "future proof" anything for video games in the pc world, just tell them to buy a console. You seem too uptight on what I said, and I thought I made a legitamite point as well, but you took it the wrong way and come off like a whiny step child.

 

[one swell foop]

Holding you to the same rules of interpretation with which you challenge what I say means I'm whiney? I didn't realize you got to play by different rules than everyone else.

 

[hdgamer]

Anyways op what did you end up going with? If you're set on one card for 1440p did you consider a 7970 or 7950 for a single card configuration?