680 Discussion (2gb not enuf Vram - agree or disagree)

[Russell_PC]

The 680s are amazing yes!..
but, I cant accept the 2gb Vram limitation,
yeah I know "2gb is fine and dandy cause no current games ever use more than 1.9gb at 1080p etc etc etc" ...
BUT, 2gb is not enough for future proof reassurance, there's a couple games almost maxing out the 2gb limit as is, and give it 2 years, maybe even 1 year, and games will well undoubtedly breach those 2gbs.

And not to mention SLI future proofing,
I mean if you wanna plug in 2 or even 3 extra 680 into your system down the road sometime for that extra power, well shame, cause the 2gb is gonna bottleneck the additional power due to the graphical demands of the future, and a lot of that extra processing power from 2way, 3way, and especially 4 way SLI will go to waste.

Anyway,
The reason for this Discussion is to vent some of my frustration while I wait for the 4gb cards to be released.
And that's when the 680 will really be amazing! (in terms of future proofing).

What ever you point of view, if disgree or agree, feel free to comment, justify, & discuss bellow

My point of view:
I'm not saying 2gb isn't enough VRAM - for now,
What I am saying is that it wont be for long.

 

[PCgamer81]

Shows over.

You are right. You finally understand the nature of VRAM and VRAM marketing. Something I have been preaching all along.

Thanks for playing.

 

[PCgamer81]

I have said a million times before, and said in this forum as well...

"A weaker card is never better because it has more VRAM".

And then you say...

Oh and it's pretty much the exact same thing as cards like the GTS 430 being given 4GB of vram and marketed as 4GB graphics cards... it's all designed to trick people who haven't done their research into buying something that really isn't as good as it sounds.

And TBH that is exactly my point.

Only stupid, uninformed sheep let VRAM factor into their purchasing decision. You said it better there than I ever could.

I have to admit, you had me tripping over myself at the top of the page, and then you go and give me that diamond nugget. It was beautiful. It was as if I planned it and played you from the beginning (but I didn't, I got lucky).

It reminds me of a chess match I was in one time, where I was down a rook and a knight and still managed a surprise mate - neither one of us seen it coming. It was perfect. I glowed.

In any case, game's over. You saw to that.

Good day!

 

[PCgamer81]

I never said it shouldn't factor in, only that it shouldn't factor in too far, at least not until other things are considered.

I really don't think we are at a disagreement here. From everything I have read from you, we pretty much seem to agree.

Although I have to add, I had much rather have a 580SLi than a GTS 430. Just sayin'. Unless Metro 2033 was all I played, lol.

I would be interested in some Metro 2033 benchmarks with that 430 if you have any, just for 'its and giggles.

 

[PCgamer81]

Oh, and you also have to figure that it was at 5760x1080.

My original guess was that 5760x1080 was a no go for them when they tried it (with the 580SLi 1.5GB). Perhaps constant crashing and they gave it a 1.

But I still don't think it's fair for you to say that a 430 would do any better, because that is an assumption that is geared to a point of argument that we are contending.

But you do have a point.

 

[PCgamer81]

It is getting late.

I am probably going to go play some Crysis 2 (can't sleep, flu )

 

[Russell_PC]

tho relevant, this strays away from the original discussion,
being that 680 2gb is too little for future SLI'ing & extreme res, or high vram games ie. Skyrim.

Even still. PCgamers arguments all hold weight, and I still agree with his points of view for his particular scenarios & justifications. BUT I still think it has been proven that the outlying games like metro and modded Skyrim both render the 2gb 680 less powerful then normal. and even tho these are anomalies in the gaming industry. if games are doing it today. then future games will do it too. even if they are anomilies also

so -> even tho 680 is fine and will do the job well enough, the 4gb version is there for the few people out there who arn't comfortable taking chances. its the added insurance.

if your spending this much on a card, and ur not happy with 2gb, I think we can all agree spending that bit extra for the added 2 gb is a good idea.

I also think it will be interesting to see weather the 7970 outperforms the 680 (max settings max AA) in future games that use higher vram cause of this reason, (wont be for another couple years tho) from current statistics though it would seem this will be the case.

 

[bystander]

Looking at the example where 1.5GB caused 1FPS, you have to consider that the settings were not playable even with 3GB. Notice the 17 FPS when you step up to 3GB in SLI. The reality is, you need to back off the settings to make either playable, and both are equally playable at that point.

4GB may be a good insurance that you won't have an issue, but 2GB will likely be enough and when it's not quite enough, you disable a setting to get smoother FPS. Probably the same settings you'd have to disable even with a 4GB card. Although, if you are running quad SLI, you may actually have enough power to have used the setting, but for the SLI or a single card, it seems unlikely that it'll be an issue.

 

[Russell_PC]

I wouldn't say that being vram conscious is for sheep tho. and that it should be considered.

Id much prefer to say its definitely not a necessary concern for the vast majority of people looking for a powerful GPU. but for pople with very specific requirement it should not be ignored. and plays just as important role as the GPU itself (when in the minority preference situation)

I must say this is a good topic and im really enjoying cause its in no way black and white. so many point of views and so many reasons why for one person vram is nothing and for someone else its everything

really makes for good & interesting discussions

 

[Russell_PC]

Looking at the example where 1.5GB caused 1FPS, you have to consider that the settings were not playable even with 3GB. Notice the 17 FPS when you step up to 3GB in SLI. The reality is, you need to back off the settings to make either playable, and both are equally playable at that point.

4GB may be a good insurance that you won't have an issue, but 2GB will likely be enough and when it's not quite enough, you disable a setting to get smoother FPS. Probably the same settings you'd have to disable even with a 4GB card. Although, if you are running quad SLI, you may actually have enough power to have used the setting, but for the SLI or a single card, it seems unlikely that it'll be an issue.

i agree with you there in some respects

but i still reckon that if the settings were lowered to a point that doubled the framerate this is what you'd get


(this will be hypothetical)

1.5 gb:
max settings = 15fps
lowered settings = 30fps

3 gb:
max settings = 30fps
lowered settings = 60 fps

you will be able to have higher settings with playable frames in this scenario

 

[bystander]

i agree with you there in some respects

but i still reckon that if the settings were lowered to a point that doubled the framerate this is what you'd get


(this will be hypothetical)

1.5 gb:
max settings = 15fps
lowered settings = 30fps

3 gb:
max settings = 30fps
lowered settings = 60 fps

you will be able to have higher settings with playable frames in this scenario

If you look closer at the benchmark shown, you'll see they do have some lowered settings on the benchmark directly above it. It shows 25 FPS vs 20 FPS. Still unplayable, and much closer to the same FPS. I suspect once you lower it enough to be playable, they'd be the same FPS.
http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-go-vs-1-go-sli-surround.html

 

[PCgamer81]

If I had a choice between a 2GB 680 for $550 or a 4GB 680 for $600, I might go with the latter. If the latter was instead $650, no way. I would take the 2GB version. And I expect the disparity between the two in price will be far greater.

I guess the value of VRAM and how much one is willing to pay varies from person to person. I really don't think there is a wrong answer.

Personally, I would take the 2GB 680 without batting an eye. I think it's that obvious.

I mean, people were paying ridiculous amounts for two 3GB 580s in SLi, and the fact that you have to play a game like Metro 2033, maxed out, at 5760x1080 before you even see a difference, indicates to me how little a thing VRAM actually is. In fact, it only matters when you don't have enough. And in 99% of games and situations, 2GB of VRAM will be plenty for the next few years. I mean, the good folks over at Nvidia aren't stupid, after all.

And like Bystander said, you can always lower the settings a tad.

So, how much more are you willing to pay?

 

[Sonny73N]

If you think 2GB is not enough (shoot me!), you should wait for 16GB version.

 

[PCgamer81]

If you think 2GB is not enough (shoot me!), you should wait for 16GB version.

?

 

[Russell_PC]

haha you are right tho, I mean what you say is true pc gamer no arguments there.
and remains true for as u said, 99% of people.

I'm 1 in 1000 people personally, I play 3d surround and I refuse to lower settings including AA. no joke if I have to lower settings I instantly buy another card to compensate.

In my said circumstance I'm sure u agree with me that 4gb isn't put to waste here?
even if it is put to waste for the other 99% of gamers.

 

[Russell_PC]

haha very true.

any plans for SLI and I agree the 4gb is a must

 

[Russell_PC]

but honestly if you have enough money for 3 x 3d monitors in surround and multi gpu setups then why would you not just put in that bit extra and get the 4gb cards, cause by this point the price difference wont even be noticable

 

[Russell_PC]

yeah that's the biggest downside about multi-monitor gaming for sure,
I do enjoy 3d surround tho I must say.

does any know what the release dates on the 4gb cards actually are?

 

[darksalvatore]

they are already relesed .....
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1461/pg6/palit-geforce-gtx-680-jetstream-edition-graphics-card-review-battlefield-3.html

but as you see 4gb vram did not help gtx 680 vs 7970 .... 7970 is still leader on 3 monitors ...

 

[bystander]

yeah that's the biggest downside about multi-monitor gaming for sure,
I do enjoy 3d surround tho I must say.

does any know what the release dates on the 4gb cards actually are?

By 3d surround, do you mean you use 3D vision across 3 monitors or are you referring to 2D surround? And if you are using 3D surround (3D vision), how is it across 3 monitors?

 

[alrobichaud]

Definately 2GB though it is factory overclocked.

 

[darksalvatore]

ups /// sry ))

alrobichaud

are you happy with your 7970 ? does t perform good ^^ ? i mena even single )) in cf it will be beast i know

 

[PCgamer81]

*looks at alrobichaud*
*checks fingernails*

 

[darksalvatore]

umadbro

 

[darksalvatore]

with thier pros and cons its really hard to choose .... but i will go for sapphire oc edition 1000mhz i think ... i had a simple question but no one can answered... witch from 680 or 7970 has betterm in fps in bf3 ... simple question but left without answer ...

 

[darksalvatore]

a bit ? do you mean 150$ is a bit ? ))