GTX 690 still holding up?

Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
811
Hey there H|F members, I was offered 2x GTX 690's in a bundle of parts the other day and I was wondering and to be clear I'm not looking to QUAD SLi since I don't think I have the PSU to run it and I hear QUAD SLi is still more of a novelty ... unless I was misinformed? I shall be running each card in separate machines . So what I want to know is how does it still stack up in current era of Gaming and Computing in general? and is 4K possible with these cards as I might use one as Media Center/Gaming Emulator in my living room along with Modern Gaming.. (Fallout 4, GTX V and steam games)...

Any members still rocking the GTX 690 as well? and have long term experience over the years with it?
 
Based off the specs, it seems like each GPU (GTX 690 = 2 GPUs) has only 2GB VRAM. For 4K gaming, the minimum VRAM your GPU should have is 4GB. However for 1080p gaming, it should still be quite a monster since its comparable to a GTX 980 more or less. For a media center, depending on your case, I imagine it will run hot, and consume way too much power for HTPC use, possibly noisy too.
 
4k... No way at all. And remember the 680 was really based on the 580. That's old tech. You'd be better off with one 1080 or 1080ti
 
I had the GTX 690 from May 2012 (when it was released) to July 2016 (upgraded to the GTX 1080 when it was released).
I was (and still am) using 2560x1600 60Hz as my desktop and gaming resolution.
I loved the GTX 690 and never regretted the $1000 purchase price. If I could go back in time to 2012 and do it over again, I'd still buy the GTX 690 again. I really liked the card that much.

The last game I played on my GTX 690 was FarCry 4 in 2016 (I was a little late in getting around to playing it). The FC4 game engine utilized the full potential of SLI at 2560x1600 and it definitely would have been unplayable as a single GPU game at the highest detail settings (which I always like to use). The GTX 690 struggled in some areas, like when I was high up on a mountain looking over the valley, but generally it was 40+ FPS and sometimes at 60 fps. During gun battles it would drop of course. But I could tell that the card was struggling to pump out the frames, so I decided to upgrade to SLI 1080's (the SLI was just to be [H]). It was a massive difference and FarCry 4 was vsynced at 60fps at the highest possible graphics settings, including the Nvidia-exclusive ones, always no matter what. It was a good positive difference in the game experience for me. If I could do it over again, I'd have waited until the 1080Ti came out before upgrading, but I didn't have a crystal ball at the time and my desire to get new GPUs was strong in 2016, so I caved.

The reality now is that 2 GB of VRAM per GPU and lack of DX12 support just does not cut it any longer in today's games.
I simply could not stand it any longer in 2016 and the release of the GTX 1080 was a good excuse to upgrade, so I did.

I would not buy a GTX 690 today. It's just not the right GPU for today's games and resolutions. No way 4K.
 
if you get it for very cheap or for free and you didn't have any other options? go for it. Otherwise, save up and get a decent card instead.
 
Multi gpu support is not so good nowadays and can have issues even if it does work or scale well. Bottom line is that you are looking a just under single 680 performance for many games which is okay for nice settings at 1080p in most games but not anything more without heavily reduced settings. Really you would be better off overall with a dinky 1050 ti than fooling with that old card.
 
You might consider flipping these locally via Craigslist/Facebook Marketplace and taking the proceeds to get a GTX 1060 3gb card or 6gb card.

Ideally and I am assuming here, it's not too entirely out of the question that you have a few hundred dollars in parts the general public would want.

Flip/sell and upgrade. I do this to great effect weekly / monthly.

You can still find 980 ti's for $200 - $250 each ... these are beastly cards and in fact, 2 x 980 ti's @ a cost of around $500 will beat very easily a 1080 ti.
 
4k... No way at all. And remember the 680 was really based on the 580. That's old tech. You'd be better off with one 1080 or 1080ti

They were Kepler based, not Fermi based like the 500 series. It's the equivalent of two slightly lower clocked than stock GTX 770s on a single PCB.

Wouldn't be bad for 1080p but I wouldn't even bother trying 4k on it.

If they're free, go for it. If there's a price attached, don't waste your time. Depending on what you have in the system currently, for $150ish you can get a new 1050ti which would be roughly equivalent in performance for single GPU, or for $250ish you can snag a 1060 which will be faster regardless. Either would be a better card.
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I shall look into the 1060/1070 Cards. As for the 4K I wasn't looking to play the games in 4K.. just Movies.. would it still be possible for that just to put as a media player?
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I shall look into the 1060/1070 Cards. As for the 4K I wasn't looking to play the games in 4K.. just Movies.. would it still be possible for that just to put as a media player?
It's excessive as a media player card. Unless you're getting a 690 at the same price as a 1050, I say you're better off going for the 1060 if you will still game, or an actual 1050 (or even 750ti if you see it around) if the 690 is more expensive.
 
I mean, Kepler had H264 acceleration and supported HDMI 1.4a, so I guess you could use it for 4k media playback, but again, unless it's free, it's just not worth the headache / noise / heat for a media center type of box.
 
Absolutely unnecessary. You're far better off simply using a modern CPU with integrated graphics. Not only will it have more/better hardware support for newer codecs but it will add close to zero additional heat and power consumption.


A 1050/1060 is a better option than anything Kepler based, but overkill for HTPC duties, especially a 1060
 
Back
Top