• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

is it worth it?

S

SSinner

n00b
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
37
Hello everyone. I have 2 questions i could use your help answering. i am considering upgrading my asus 460gtx to one of the fancy 680's that just came out. I am addicted to Bf3 and am finding that on some maps my little card cant keep up even tho i have it clocked at 850/3680. I game at 1920/1080. am i gonna see a hugh difference in framerate? i also am running an older setup which is Phenom 2 940 which i have overclocked to 3.4ghz on a gigabyte 790 board. i have a Cousair 550 watt psu, is this big enough to run a 680gtx. any comments or suggestions are welcome.
 
I would say 460 -> 680 would be a considerable performance jump, yeah.

Just look at reviews @ 1920x1080/1200 and see how that compares to your frame rates.
 
why spend so much though? just buy a 580 for 359!


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130704



I have a 460 and my frame rate isn't that great nor are my settings. personally I cant bring myself to spend 350 dollars on a video card it makes me angry.. but there are cards for 300 and less that run bf3 on max settings at that resolution with good framerates
 
I think a gtx 680 might be a bit of overkill. Its more then twice as powerful as your current card. Your processor would bottleneck it in some games but not too badly. Maybe look into a gtx 570 for around $250. Its about 50% faster then your card. But if you really want one your psu should handle it just fine.
 
Heresy!

Don't listen to the peanut gallery.

Get the 680

In my experience, an OC 480 (roughly equal to a 580) still left a lot to be desired in BF3 on a single screen.

BF3 is not as CPU bound as BC2 - You might not get everything out of the card right now, but when you upgrade your CPU and motherboard, you'll be glad you went all the way.
 
I think you may need to focus on your cpu first. In single player BF3 performance doesn't seem to increase after 4 threads. Multiplayer is a different ball game though, the more cores/threads the better.
See here: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043
Also scroll down here for a few graphs: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead
Check out the one with no AA. At 1920 x 1080 the minimum frame rate for a Phenom II 980 was 49 and the 1100T was 61.
Will your board support an X6? If not, do you have a Microcenter nearby?
 
my board is a gigabyte Ga-ma790gp-ds4h.Its 3 years old.Thanks for the graphs, the X6 would be a wise upgrade. dont have a microcenter nearby . i just came off a 4 hour session on BF3, and my eye are glowing!
 
I hope the OP doesn't mind but his thread title and subject matter are perfect for what I want to post. ;)

Here's my system details relevant to this subject:

Intel qx9650 OC'd to 3.6
8 GB of PC8500 RAM at 1066
a single GTX 480 SC (EVGA)

With games like Skyrim I'm sure I'm already a little bit into bottlenecking territory although Skyrim is a little bit unusual in the regard that it leans on the CPU.


That being said, heat and noise not withstanding, I game at 1920x1200. At some point I might go up to a 27 or 30 inch monitor but probably not any time super soon.

Practically speaking, what would a GTX 680 bring me vs a 480 in terms of performance?
 
Q-BZ said:
I hope the OP doesn't mind but his thread title and subject matter are perfect for what I want to post. ;)

Here's my system details relevant to this subject:

Intel qx9650 OC'd to 3.6
8 GB of PC8500 RAM at 1066
a single GTX 480 SC (EVGA)

With games like Skyrim I'm sure I'm already a little bit into bottlenecking territory although Skyrim is a little bit unusual in the regard that it leans on the CPU.


That being said, heat and noise not withstanding, I game at 1920x1200. At some point I might go up to a 27 or 30 inch monitor but probably not any time super soon.

Practically speaking, what would a GTX 680 bring me vs a 480 in terms of performance?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to say as there are very few bencharks on any of these cards using a cpu that old. You do have a nice clockspeed on it working in your favor. With that said, anything that is not CPU limited you will get a very solid framerate increase. 40% or so is my guess looking at the step up from 480>580>680. You will also have a card that runs significantly cooler and draws less power than your 480. Those things were beasts. If you can afford it, it would be a great upgrade. Especially if you do any BF3. Skyrim itself will allow you to turn on some more eye candy via the driver but that game runs very well as is.

I upgraded from a 580 to a 680 and have no regrets. The 680 pushed BF3 over 60 fps constant with all options cranked at 1080p. That in it self is huge. Add in all the new power management features and it's a winner.
 
demingo said:
It's difficult to say as there are very few bencharks on any of these cards using a cpu that old. You do have a nice clockspeed on it working in your favor. With that said, anything that is not CPU limited you will get a very solid framerate increase. 40% or so is my guess looking at the step up from 480>580>680. You will also have a card that runs significantly cooler and draws less power than your 480. Those things were beasts. If you can afford it, it would be a great upgrade. Especially if you do any BF3. Skyrim itself will allow you to turn on some more eye candy via the driver but that game runs very well as is.

I upgraded from a 580 to a 680 and have no regrets. The 680 pushed BF3 over 60 fps constant with all options cranked at 1080p. That in it self is huge. Add in all the new power management features and it's a winner.
Click to expand...

Wow, those are better prospects than I was expecting. :) Lord knows I won't miss the noise and the heat, either.
 
SSinner said:
my board is a gigabyte Ga-ma790gp-ds4h.Its 3 years old.Thanks for the graphs, the X6 would be a wise upgrade. dont have a microcenter nearby . i just came off a 4 hour session on BF3, and my eye are glowing!
Click to expand...

I would suggest grabbing a used 1055T, or any other X6, and then a used 460 for SLI..The 460s arent bad cards, and you could easily get both the cpu and 2nd 460 for under $300 if you look around.
 
In BF3, I would probably go with a CPU/GPU upgrade to ensure a nice framerate increase, especially for minimum frames. I game at 1080p myself and I've already decided that the 680 will be my next upgrade since the 460 doesn't cut it anymore, even overclocked to 880/2200 - I want to be able to max all settings and run at least 2xMSAA. BF3 starts to choke with a bunch of explosions on screen. I think the 680 will be a very nice upgrade from the 460

So for sure pop in a 6 core AMD and it's up to you as to springing for the new 680 as opposed to grabbing a 2nd 460. I'm not ever going SLI so the 680 it is for me
 
550W will run 200W TDP card without problems.

I had X6 and GTX470 on 450W unit but it was dropping voltages way to close to atx norm limits so I upgraded :)

But you also need to upgrade your CPU - 3,4 Ghz is not enough to not bottleneck monter card like this.
 
you won't see full benefits from the 680. your processor will bottleneck... but it'll still be an improvement from the 460
 
For what it's worth, BF3 is very cpu dependent. I got a considerable jump just from going from my Phenom II x6 @ 3.8 to a 2500k @ 4.5. You might be held back by your 940 when it comes to BF3.
 
dremic said:
why spend so much though? just buy a 580 for 359!
Click to expand...

I did that and am now regretting it because I thought GTX 680 would be priced horribly like 7970@$600.00. If I had known it would be just $500.00 I would rather have paid the extra $100.00 and got the GTX 680 over 580. I dun goofed. :eek:
 
TheGamerZ said:
For what it's worth, BF3 is very cpu dependent. I got a considerable jump just from going from my Phenom II x6 @ 3.8 to a 2500k @ 4.5. You might be held back by your 940 when it comes to BF3.
Click to expand...

Ivy Bridge next month! Think I will see much gain going from Lynnfield i5 750@3.2GHZ to Ivy i5 3570k@? though?
 
Stayfr0sty said:
Yup, but not only the video, I would suggest new CPU as well.
BF3 eats quads for breakfest.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why when I get my 680 it's going inside a LGA 1155 board with an Ivy Bridge CPU populating the socket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top