Thread: GTX 680 choice

Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    GTX 680 choice

    Hello guys!

    So I wanna build myself a new PC, already know which parts to buy etc.
    However, I am in a bit of a struggle between 2 GTX 680's

    Gigabyte Windforce 3 4GB for 521 Euro.
    ASUS DirectCU II 4gb for 575 Euro.

    Now, there's quite a gap in prices, however money is not the big issue here.
    Which of those cards would perform best, and which one is the most quiet one?

  2. #2
    High Overlord Ninjaxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    132
    Well, lately there's been quite a lot of talk that 4gb versions are just waste of money. Practically it's just difference of aftermarket coolers of your choice since both brands are pretty good. + Asus one takes 3 slots, be sure your case and mobo will support that.
    First self-built rig
    CPU:Intel i5-2500k|CPU Cooler: CM 212+ EVO
    MoBO:ASRock Extreme 4 z77|GPU:EVGA GTX 680
    Memory: Corsair Vengeance 2x4gb black|SSD: Crucial m4 64gb
    PSU: Corsair TX 750]

  3. #3
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,557
    I'd choose the Gigabyte one over the ASUS one, even if it'd been more expensive.

    And go for the 2GiB one, 4GiB is a performance loss if anything.

  4. #4
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    I'd choose the Gigabyte one over the ASUS one, even if it'd been more expensive.

    And go for the 2GiB one, 4GiB is a performance loss if anything.
    loss? it is equal and only better in very specific scenarios. (2gb is plenty for gaming already)
    as for the OP what are the prices for MSI lightning/zotac AMP cards from where you intend to order? (680's that is)

  5. #5
    The Lightbringer Tehterokkar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,420
    I prefer the ASUS cooling solution, so I would get it.. But that's me personally.

    Although the price difference is 50 Euros, I'd still take the ASUS .

    If you have 3 monitors and plan on doing Eyefinity(or something similar), get the 4GB version you linked, otherwise go with the 2GB version.

    ASUS 2GB Models:
    OC
    Top

    OC is a "lesser quality" Card, while Top is the higher quality. This just means that they were able to overclock the Top card further than OC, so if you are going to be OC'ing your GPU, definitely go with the Top version. Otherwise OC. Price difference is £34 which is 42€. However this doesn't mean that you can't overclock the OC version more, the Top version just should be more towards overclocking .

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaxl View Post
    Well, lately there's been quite a lot of talk that 4gb versions are just waste of money. Practically it's just difference of aftermarket coolers of your choice since both brands are pretty good. + Asus one takes 3 slots, be sure your case and mobo will support that.
    The 4GB version of the DC2 680 is a 2slot card, not a 3.

    Tbh the extra 2GB is just a waste overall and might limit the overclock room on the vram?

    I just would go for the Asus gtx 680 dc2t which boosts at default settings to 1254MHz because they're higher binned than the Gigabytes.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    I'd choose the Gigabyte one over the ASUS one, even if it'd been more expensive.

    And go for the 2GiB one, 4GiB is a performance loss if anything.
    >.< what? @2Gb Vs 4Gb is not a performance loss at all, in terms of day to day they are identical until you pull out super high resolutions, or a ton of graphical mods at which point the 4Gb outperforms the 2Gb. Some skyrim mods point out well over 2 gigs of usage, and thats only skyrim, BF3 push's near or more @ 2560x1440p on ultra. While it may not be worth getting for everyone it would hardly be a performance loss unless they manage to use inferior parts, or clocking is different otherwise it would make no difference at all. However it seems a lot of 4Gb models are baseline clocked.
    Last edited by Milkshake86; 2013-01-08 at 08:16 PM.

  8. #8
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,557
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    loss? it is equal and only better in very specific scenarios. (2gb is plenty for gaming already)
    as for the OP what are the prices for MSI lightning/zotac AMP cards from where you intend to order? (680's that is)
    Quote Originally Posted by Milkshake86 View Post
    >.< what? @2Gb Vs 4Gb is not a performance loss at all, in terms of day to day they are identical until you pull out super high resolutions, or a ton of graphical mods at which point the 4Gb outperforms the 2Gb. Some skyrim mods point out well over 2 gigs of usage, and thats only skyrim, BF3 push's near or more @ 2560x1440p on ultra. While it may not be worth getting for everyone it would hardly be a performance loss unless they manage to use inferior parts.
    256 bit membus.
    The GPU will be hitting the roof far earlier than the memory usage.
    4GiB means twice as high memory density, so clocking suffers a lot.

    ASUS themselves have basically said that standardclocks, they don't notice any difference with 4GiB compared to 2GiB, even in 3x2560x1440.
    The only reason they sell it is because consumers tell them they want it.

  9. #9
    The Lightbringer Toffie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,761
    Go for the MSI Lightning if you want the best card.
    Steam Big Picture Mode - 4570 - GA-H87N - MSI R9-290 - 120 GB Samsung 840 EVO
    Corsair 250D - Philips 55 LED TV - Corsair RM 550 - Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB

    4770K - EVGA 780 Ti SC- Corsair 350D - V700 - Gryphon Z87
    Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB - Samsung 840 250GB - H60

  10. #10
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    256 bit membus.
    The GPU will be hitting the roof far earlier than the memory usage.
    4GiB means twice as high memory density, so clocking suffers a lot.

    ASUS themselves have basically said that standardclocks, they don't notice any difference with 4GiB compared to 2GiB, even in 3x2560x1440.
    The only reason they sell it is because consumers tell them they want it.
    clocking suffers a lot? your being overdramatic on that part tbh, my 4gb 670 still likes a nice +117 core and +805 mem offset.
    the use of 4gb cards is very limited. (think huge BF3 64 maps overview point of the map with everything maxed out)

  11. #11
    Thanks for the replys, guys.
    I'll go with a 2gb version, since I'm not planning on multi-monitor setup, nor modding in games, except of GTA IV (And GTA V when it comes out).
    I've always thought 4 gb would out perform a 2gb anyday, seems I was wrong lol.

    The 2gb versions are around 100 - 120 Euros cheaper on the website I'm buying at.

    Ninjaxl@ - I already have a 3-slots GTX 570 from ASUS, and since I'm upgrading from a CM 690 to a Storm Trooper, the size won't be an issue.

  12. #12
    Warchief Ron Burgundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In the mountains
    Posts
    2,155
    ive heard good things about the asus gtx 680 direct cu ii
    Milk was a bad choice.

    2013 MMO-Champion User of the Year (2nd runner up)

  13. #13
    Should just save your money an get 2 AMD HD 8000 series graphic cards coming out.

  14. #14
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophelos View Post
    Should just save your money an get 2 AMD HD 8000 series graphic cards coming out.
    you mean those rebranded laptop GPU chips?
    because so far no details are out for the actual new chip could still take half a year till they are actually released.

  15. #15
    The Lightbringer Tehterokkar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,420
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    clocking suffers a lot? your being overdramatic on that part tbh, my 4gb 670 still likes a nice +117 core and +805 mem offset.
    the use of 4gb cards is very limited. (think huge BF3 64 maps overview point of the map with everything maxed out)
    "Huge BF3 maps" I get less FPS in Karkand compared to Caspian Border, Armored Shield, Death Valley and Alborz Mountain. It's not the map size, it's how much destruction there is pretty much. Karkand has a lot of destruction compared to other maps

  16. #16
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,557
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    clocking suffers a lot? your being overdramatic on that part tbh, my 4gb 670 still likes a nice +117 core and +805 mem offset.
    the use of 4gb cards is very limited. (think huge BF3 64 maps overview point of the map with everything maxed out)
    Would not benefit you more than a GTX 670 2GiB though. You'd get the same performance, possibly better.

  17. #17
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    Would not benefit you more than a GTX 670 2GiB though. You'd get the same performance, possibly better.
    or worse if i get a worse oc'able chip , it's all a big game of luck with hardware in that aspect.
    reason i got the 4gb version was due to an offer i couldn't refuse (i pretty much snatched it on some nice sale and was around the price of current 660Ti's so i won't complain ^^)
    i also intended to go tripple screen setup but this has been postponed so far , either way the OP doesn't need a 4gb card nor do i currently.

  18. #18
    tetris is right about the 256 membus, it will never actually benefit from the 2GB extra and it would not do OC as well. Read some articles and see for yourself. 4GB is no point, just a waste of money unless you get it heavily discounted like you did, I wouldn't buy it. It won't run multiscreen setups better either.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    clocking suffers a lot? your being overdramatic on that part tbh, my 4gb 670 still likes a nice +117 core and +805 mem offset.
    the use of 4gb cards is very limited. (think huge BF3 64 maps overview point of the map with everything maxed out)
    Uhm I can't say if your card is a decent clocker or not for a 4GB version and neither I'm sure if the memclock is OC'ed the timings would bump automatically as well. Dealing with high timings can be very painful..

    I've seen a lot of 670's/680's pushing above the 7000MHz easily while mine does 7.6, the speed needs to be shared over the extra 2GB (while it's not even needed) and causing performance drop.

    The only point I see about having a 4GB version is just to run a 2nd/3rd game

  20. #20
    Herald of the Titans Saithes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Mun
    Posts
    2,609
    The main reason for a performance drop when overclocking the memory is the Error Correction Code that Kepler has. After a certain point and errors become prevalent it actually slows down to the rate it can properly correct the errors in the memory. It's also why after a certain point you get a performance decline even without artifacting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •