Palit Jetstream GTX 680 4GB + 4GB SLI reviews @ TweakTown

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,231
Sometimes I think these reviewers are just college kids and fast food workers scrounging and posing to do a review for a free product.

So often I see test configs that only make sense when "that's just what I have" - like giant video card coolers tested on low end video cards and stuff like that.

Not so much in this case - the reviewer has a pretty beefy system, but the big question is how much sense do these cards make in multi-screen configurations?

/boggle
 
Sometimes I think these reviewers are just college kids and fast food workers scrounging and posing to do a review for a free product.

So often I see test configs that only make sense when "that's just what I have" - like giant video card coolers tested on low end video cards and stuff like that.

Not so much in this case - the reviewer has a pretty beefy system, but the big question is how much sense do these cards make in multi-screen configurations?

/boggle

This.

Those box pictures are laughable.
 
Palit is pretty much done in the USA for all intents and purposes.
 
And yeah, ~1080P alone is pretty much useless for covering that product.
 
Is everyone blind? Look at the graph. There are 3 bars. The purple one = 2560x1600 and is used in every actual game test.
 
there's no point in testing a 4GB card unless it's a 3+ monitor Surround/EyeFinity.

+1, There is a game or 2 that will exceed 2GB and bottom out your performance at 2560x1600(with IQ maxed), but Multi screen is really what people are going to want a 4GB card for. Kind of pointless to test on single screen IMO
 
Is everyone blind? Look at the graph. There are 3 bars. The purple one = 2560x1600 and is used in every actual game test.

Unfortunately, the High AA/AF testing was only done at 1920x1200. The 2GB card runs 2560x1600 just fine with normal settings, we really need to see if the 4GB helps at high resolutions and settings.
 
This isn't going to be a magical 10% improvement or anything. The 4gb probably isn't gonna do much at all. Didn't the review here already show that a single GTX 680 could handle 5760x1200 without any issues? The only place where this might make sense is tri/quad sli.
 
This isn't going to be a magical 10% improvement or anything. The 4gb probably isn't gonna do much at all. Didn't the review here already show that a single GTX 680 could handle 5760x1200 without any issues? The only place where this might make sense is tri/quad sli.
The extra memory is only going to help in cases where 2GB is not enough and the card is memory bottlenecked, and those situations tend to severely curb performance. It doesn't matter if you have 1 card or 4. So really, the only area I can see this help is pushing huge amounts of AA at 5760x1200 or running triple 30" monitors.
 
Basically, you will know if you need a 4gig card, it'll be obvious, like hmmm I have 3 monitors, or hey I want a bigger problem size so need more cuda VRAM...

I'm looking forward to trying 3 monitors w/ 1 4gig 680
 
This isn't going to be a magical 10% improvement or anything. The 4gb probably isn't gonna do much at all. Didn't the review here already show that a single GTX 680 could handle 5760x1200 without any issues? The only place where this might make sense is tri/quad sli.

That is what I was hoping the review would focus on, where are there differences? Lots of people seem to be convinced they should get a 4GB card, and I doubt it matters except for maybe 3x30" or 3x1080p Skyrim with tons of mods, BF3 Ultra etc. Just curious to see where it does make a difference. Doesn't personally matter to me since I have one 1920x1200 display.
 
BF3 ultra with fsxx and 8x af at 5760x1080 works just fine for me at 45-60fps with my dual 480's. Smooth as silk. See no reason why 4GB cards would be necessary for bf3.
 
akk those graphs burn my eyes... and there are 17 pages????

its simple... sort the graph from Highest Average to Lowest Average.. for a minute i thought they had forgot to actually bench the GTX680 4gb..
 
I agree there should have been triple-monitor resolutions tested, especially for the SLI review, but it would be nice to see some ultra-high detail (16x AF, 8x MSAA) stuff for single-monitor at 1080p, just to verify if more than 2 GB is actually needed for anything. So far it doesn't seem to be much of a problem but there's been a lot of debate over it so it would be nice to see for sure.
 
I agree there should have been triple-monitor resolutions tested, especially for the SLI review, but it would be nice to see some ultra-high detail (16x AF, 8x MSAA) stuff for single-monitor at 1080p, just to verify if more than 2 GB is actually needed for anything. So far it doesn't seem to be much of a problem but there's been a lot of debate over it so it would be nice to see for sure.

It reminds me of their ivy bridge review that failed to include overclocking. It is just puzzling why they would review a 4gb card without testing super heavy AA scenarios (8x/16x) and/or 3d surround.
 
It reminds me of their ivy bridge review that failed to include overclocking. It is just puzzling why they would review a 4gb card without testing super heavy AA scenarios (8x/16x) and/or 3d surround.

Well they did test a few games with AA/AF pretty high, but the problem is that they didn't really show a normal GTX 680 2 GB SLI benchmark alongside it. They show the standard 2 GB, OCed 2 GB, then 4 GB SLI. Plus, the fact that they stuck the 4 GB SLI at the bottom of every graph is just retarded and makes it harder than it should be to see where it actually lies in the performance spectrum.

In the games they did test with high AA/AF, it was at 1920x1200 and the games they chose were terrible. No BF3, Skyrim, or Crysis 2. As such, there was virtually no difference between 2 GB and 4 GB in their tests.
 
Sorry for the Necro-bump, but allow me to officially lobby here for the [H] treatment of 2GB vs 4GB 670/680 in SLI ... EVERYONE is asking whether the 4GB version is worth dropping the extra coin for lately ... obviously it would be silly for < Surround resolutions or for a single card setup, but ... what we need is for [H] to show us what happens when you go out of your way to separate the performance of the two ... as only they seem to know how to do :)
 
Sorry for the Necro-bump, but allow me to officially lobby here for the [H] treatment of 2GB vs 4GB 670/680 in SLI ... EVERYONE is asking whether the 4GB version is worth dropping the extra coin for lately ... obviously it would be silly for < Surround resolutions or for a single card setup, but ... what we need is for [H] to show us what happens when you go out of your way to separate the performance of the two ... as only they seem to know how to do :)

I'd be curious to see this as well.

* 2GB vs 4GB in single card and 2-4 card SLI
* Performance at 1920x1200, 2560x1600 and 3x 1200p/1600p resolutions
 
Back
Top