Gtx 670 FTW vs 4GB VRAM

[roadkill922]

Hi,

I am wanting to upgrade my video card in order to run a surround setup with 3 1080p monitors. I would like to do this on BF3, however, I only want one card, no sli. I am aware that I will not be able to do this on the highest settings, as the only way to do that would be to go sli/crossfire. I would probably get about medium settings right? I am leaning towards a gtx 670 from EVGA. My question is: for running a surround setup, will the extra VRAM of the 4GB version make a difference, or should I go with the 2GB FTW that has a higher clock and is about 60 dollars cheaper.


Currently running:

CORSAIR Builder Series CX600 (CMPSU-600CX) 600W ATX12V v2.3 Active PFC Power Supply

EVGA SuperClocked 01G-P3-1461-KR GeForce GTX 560 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

GIGABYTE GA-Z68A-D3-B3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

Core i5 2500k

Patriot G series ‘Sector 5’ Edition 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model PGV38G1600ELK


Would definitely appreciate feedback from somebody who has experience with this type of setup or similar.

Thanks

 

[2fast4thetown_down]

FTW it is faster and the vram shouldnt hold you back on it 2gb is still a ton.

 

[Kamen_BG]

Although it is true that the FTW should perform better on lower resolutions the 2GB memory does in fack limit its performance at higher resolutions.You can see that happen when you compare an HD7970 vs GTX680 at resolution higher than 1080p.

IMO you should get the 4GB Version as they will both reach the same frequency when overclocked.(or... since the FTW is 420$ and the 4GB is 480 you should get a GTX 680 for 500$)

 

[Kamen_BG]

like this one
http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GeForce-PCI-Express-Graphics-GV-N680OC-2GD/dp/B007ZUDOKG/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1340039249&sr=8-12&keywords=gtx+680

 

[fantastik250]

This is what Guru3d had to say about 4GB of VRAM. They reviewed a Palit GTX 680 4GB.

The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

Now the setup could benefit from triple monitor setups at 5760x1080 (which is a 6 Mpixels resolution), but even there I doubt if 4 GB is really something you'd need to spend money on. It might make a difference at 16xAA and the most stringent games, or if you game in 3D Stereo and triple monitor gaming -- I mean sure -- at any point graphics memory can and will run out. There's one exception to the rule, and that's Skyrim all beefed, tweaked and modded upwards. But the universal question remains, is it worth it investing in that extra memor? This card is 90 EUR more expensive. Well that answer depends on pricing versus your demands and requriements really, the extra memory certainly won't hurt that's for sure, but sure -- the benefits remains small.

...The Palit GeForce GTX 680 4GB JetStream edition leaves us awed but not shocked, whether or not you'll use the extra 2GB of memory is debatable, give it the right circumstances and sure it can help out. But 2GB really covers 98% of the games in the highest resolutions.

Source: http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review/26

Hope that helps

 

[roadkill922]

FTW it is faster and the vram shouldnt hold you back on it 2gb is still a ton.

So even running at a 5760x1080 resolution, the 2GB of VRAM will not be a bottleneck?

 

[2fast4thetown_down]

No I dont think there will be any problems

 

[game junky]

I think you need more graphics processing power than video memory for BF3 surround. For more than 3 monitors (a la AMD's hex-monitor setups with eyefinity), video RAM comes into play but BF3 is going to need more muscle than multitasking. If your budget isn't too terribly tight, I would try a 680 - I personally like ASUS so this is what I am personally looking to upgrade to:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121634

They're not cheap but I am not planning on purchasing another GPU for 5 years so it feels worth it to me

 

[roadkill922]

I think you need more graphics processing power than video memory for BF3 surround. For more than 3 monitors (a la AMD's hex-monitor setups with eyefinity), video RAM comes into play but BF3 is going to need more muscle than multitasking. If your budget isn't too terribly tight, I would try a 680 - I personally like ASUS so this is what I am personally looking to upgrade to:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121634

They're not cheap but I am not planning on purchasing another GPU for 5 years so it feels worth it to me

Unfortunately, that may be more than I am willing to spend, as I am on a pretty tight budget if I want to get the extra monitors as well. It also looks like that ASUS may be too big to fit in my case. The thing is HUGE! It does look amazing and I wish I had one though. For the price, the 670 sounds like the best value and barely fits my budget so I will probably stick with it

 

[roadkill922]

Best answer selected by roadkill922.