I've been becoming rather annoyed by the lack of solid answers with reference to the vram amounts on the two top single-GPU cards available at the moment being sufficient for gaming. What is certain is that as it stands, the GTX680 is the best, despite it's smaller amount of memory.
I am not concerned about pricing, temperatures, fan noise or appearance. I merely want to have a card which will be able to sustain playing every single game that is currently out and will be released before the next generation of GPUs are launched. I want to be able to play them with ALL the settings on MAX, everything that can be enabled, enabled and with 'decent' FPS (ie. no lag.) I have been doing the same thing for ages - buying the top single-GPU card, playing everything on max for a year and then getting another, so as to keep up with the games which are released.
I have a number of questions that are unanswered, despite my reading and watching numerous reviews (both specific to each card and comparative) and scrolling through a large amount of threads related to the topic.
1. Why is it that Nvidia released the 680 with 2GB when they knew that AMD had a card out with 3GB. Providing more memory would make the cards last longer. Was it due to their knowing that without it, the card would still win, and therefore they saved on costs? I have read, on multiple sites, that the 680 is in fact what the 670 was going to be and was labelled the 680 when Nvidia saw that their expectations of the 7970 were greater than what was produced.
2. How is it that Nvidia managed to get the 680 to win, with less memory? Is it due to the fact that games don't require more than 2GB at present? Is it because of the memory clock being higher? (I have read somewhere that this may be the case.) Does the processing power counter the card having less memory?
3.Do games at present require more than 2GB of vram? I know this relates to the above question, but it's distinct. Will there be games throughout the next year that do? The next Metro, Crysis 3 and Max Payne 3 are all games that I suspect of doing so.
4. Is there a way to tell, genuinely, how much memory a game uses? I have seen opinions amounting to 'a game uses whatever is available, so if the card has 3GB, the usage results will be close to this.' If that is true, how is the actual usage determined?
I can already see this thread being filled with people saying 'blahblah, games don't require more than 1GB of ram, i still have a card-x and it runs everything on max' and 'if you want to run multiple monitors, you need more than 2GB, otherwise not nonsensenonsense.' There will probably be a lot of biased opinions, due to certain people liking one of the two brands more. Hopefully, there won't be much of that though, and the thread can be a logical, fact-motivated discussion, rather than a harsh debate.
I am accustomed to building PCs and keep up-to-date with the latest hardware developments. I say this so that people don't suspect me of being a complete noob, with a lack of understanding, and decide to explain things using simple terms.
I am gaming with a 27" 1080p LCD and would like (if possible with a single card) to get above 60fps in all games. If not, I may consider getting another. No other components in my system will result in the card's performance decreasing. For the sake of equality, I will be buying a stock card, using a reference PCB design and cooler. If it turns out that the 2GB 680 will last until the next generation of cards, then I'll get it, as I like the new technology that Nvidia has included, such as FXAA, adaptive V-sync and the proven-to-make-a-difference-in-visuals PhysX. I don't care that only a few games use PhysX, if the option is available, I'd like to be able to make use of it. Better graphics are better. Aah, circular logic.
I am not concerned about pricing, temperatures, fan noise or appearance. I merely want to have a card which will be able to sustain playing every single game that is currently out and will be released before the next generation of GPUs are launched. I want to be able to play them with ALL the settings on MAX, everything that can be enabled, enabled and with 'decent' FPS (ie. no lag.) I have been doing the same thing for ages - buying the top single-GPU card, playing everything on max for a year and then getting another, so as to keep up with the games which are released.
I have a number of questions that are unanswered, despite my reading and watching numerous reviews (both specific to each card and comparative) and scrolling through a large amount of threads related to the topic.
1. Why is it that Nvidia released the 680 with 2GB when they knew that AMD had a card out with 3GB. Providing more memory would make the cards last longer. Was it due to their knowing that without it, the card would still win, and therefore they saved on costs? I have read, on multiple sites, that the 680 is in fact what the 670 was going to be and was labelled the 680 when Nvidia saw that their expectations of the 7970 were greater than what was produced.
2. How is it that Nvidia managed to get the 680 to win, with less memory? Is it due to the fact that games don't require more than 2GB at present? Is it because of the memory clock being higher? (I have read somewhere that this may be the case.) Does the processing power counter the card having less memory?
3.Do games at present require more than 2GB of vram? I know this relates to the above question, but it's distinct. Will there be games throughout the next year that do? The next Metro, Crysis 3 and Max Payne 3 are all games that I suspect of doing so.
4. Is there a way to tell, genuinely, how much memory a game uses? I have seen opinions amounting to 'a game uses whatever is available, so if the card has 3GB, the usage results will be close to this.' If that is true, how is the actual usage determined?
I can already see this thread being filled with people saying 'blahblah, games don't require more than 1GB of ram, i still have a card-x and it runs everything on max' and 'if you want to run multiple monitors, you need more than 2GB, otherwise not nonsensenonsense.' There will probably be a lot of biased opinions, due to certain people liking one of the two brands more. Hopefully, there won't be much of that though, and the thread can be a logical, fact-motivated discussion, rather than a harsh debate.
I am accustomed to building PCs and keep up-to-date with the latest hardware developments. I say this so that people don't suspect me of being a complete noob, with a lack of understanding, and decide to explain things using simple terms.
I am gaming with a 27" 1080p LCD and would like (if possible with a single card) to get above 60fps in all games. If not, I may consider getting another. No other components in my system will result in the card's performance decreasing. For the sake of equality, I will be buying a stock card, using a reference PCB design and cooler. If it turns out that the 2GB 680 will last until the next generation of cards, then I'll get it, as I like the new technology that Nvidia has included, such as FXAA, adaptive V-sync and the proven-to-make-a-difference-in-visuals PhysX. I don't care that only a few games use PhysX, if the option is available, I'd like to be able to make use of it. Better graphics are better. Aah, circular logic.
Can we see those "certain" benches, please? I read many sites with 7970 vs 680 benchmarks and never seen OC 7970 beat stock 680 GTX in more than 50% of games tested.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram