Got 680 2Gb or 4gb
- Thread starter GHobo
- Start date
I'd get the 4GB myself.
tylerjrb
Member
I'd personally get the 2gb version if your only planning 1080p and a single card. 4gb isn't really needed as it would run out of Gpu power before the 2gb is used up. It would come in handy for SLI if you plan it. If it's like £10 more for 4gb vs 2gb get the 4gb but if it is quite a bit more I'd get the 2gb.
Last edited:
I've got a 4GB GTX 760 and whilst some may argue it's overkill for a mid-range card and I don't fully utlise it, it's good to have some future-proofing. The GTX 680 is still a strong GPU some 3 years on from its release so having the extra RAM will help it remain good for longer. Get the 4GB. :good:
But I assume you are getting a good deal on this 680? You might want to see how much more expensive a 780 or 980 is just to make sure you're not paying a lot for a 3 year old card.
But I assume you are getting a good deal on this 680? You might want to see how much more expensive a 780 or 980 is just to make sure you're not paying a lot for a 3 year old card.
I recommended the 4GB because with 2GB I can play most games, but I get lag on Watch Dogs because it is quite demanding, and some features have to be disabled because I only have a 2GB card.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Do you just make this stuff up?
1080p gaming has been limited by 2GB VRAM for years. What do you mean by it would run out of GPU power before 2GB is used up? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and neither does your comment regarding SLI.
OP - get the 4GB version. There is no point getting a 2GB VRAM 680 these days.
lovely?
Active Member
The 680 is capable of running games like Shadow of Mordor on high textures. At 1080p, that game takes around 3gb vram.
tylerjrb
Member
The gtx 680 would struggle a constant 60fps on shadow of mordor at 1080p. it also uses around 2gb at 1080p not 3.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Nope.
What that is saying, is unless you like low textures, 30FPS or stuttering you need more than 2GB. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-eyes-on-with-pc-shadow-of-mordors-6gb-textures
tylerjrb
Member
The gtx 680 wouldnt use over 2gb for a comfortable playable experience at 60fps on very high settings 1080p.
It will use more vram because a 6gb card has the capacity to do so, doesnt necessarily mean it will perform better than a more powerful 4gb card. GTX 980 SLI at 4k maxed settings with shadow of mordor still uses less than 4gb vram its close to its full capacity but still doesnt use over 4gb at 4k maximum settings.
Last edited:
lovely?
Active Member
I can max out my 765m's 2gb vram on shadow of mordor with ~40fps avg. If a GTX 680 4gb doesn't run the game BETTER than a 2gb version, I'll eat my frikken shoe. I know for a fact the 2gb version on ultra will struggle to get 50fps, and constantly stutter with a 4690 @ 4.4ghz
Last edited:
tylerjrb
Member
Maybe you should look at some gameplay for the 680 on mordor then maxed out it uses just under 2gb with 99% usage. I'm not saying it wouldn't perform better but there would be marginal difference between the 2gb and 4gb unless it's in SLI if it was €10 more then it would be worth it.
It's like the r9 290x 4gb vs 8gb. Unless it's in 3-4 crossfire it makes minimal difference.
It's like the r9 290x 4gb vs 8gb. Unless it's in 3-4 crossfire it makes minimal difference.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
99% usage = 100% usage. At that point it is simply running between system and vram.
And what does SLI have to do with it?
lovely?
Active Member
you want proof, that Shadow of Mordor takes more than 2gb, here it is. This is a screenshot with SoM on medium. Note it's running right about at 2gb vram.
On an OT note, the 765m is a BEAST! it comes at 800mhz core and 4ghz ddr5, and readily overclocked to 1120mhz and 5.1ghz on the ram. I keep it at 1045mhz/5ghz for daily running. Required flashing to a modded bios, and scores in 3dmark match that of stock 770m's. w00t
On an OT note, the 765m is a BEAST! it comes at 800mhz core and 4ghz ddr5, and readily overclocked to 1120mhz and 5.1ghz on the ram. I keep it at 1045mhz/5ghz for daily running. Required flashing to a modded bios, and scores in 3dmark match that of stock 770m's. w00t
Last edited:
tylerjrb
Member
im not saying it doesnt use 2gb vram, the videos ive seen have been right on the 2gb mark at 1080p, 1440p uses 2.6gb on these cards. Im just saying even with SoM on high, very high it struggles to maintain 60fps. Regardless if the card had 2gb or 4gb.
The card is pretty hard to get hold of the 4gb version more so than the 2gb. obviously it would be a wise choice if the card was £150 for a 2gb version or £160 for a 4gb. But if it was £50+ more, would it be worth it?
The card is pretty hard to get hold of the 4gb version more so than the 2gb. obviously it would be a wise choice if the card was £150 for a 2gb version or £160 for a 4gb. But if it was £50+ more, would it be worth it?
Last edited:
lovely?
Active Member
My only point is that a 4gb card will have a much higher minimum fps because of the lack of stutters and slightly higher avg fps. The videos I've watched in contrast to the ones you've watched show more than 2gb used at 1080p. The gpu-z screen was meant to show that if on medium, 2gb are used, then it stands to reason more is necessary for higher settings. The games designers state the difference between high and medium is 1gb vram. Even if they were incredibly conservative, 256mb more usage would cause micro-stuttering on any 2gb card regardless of its power. Furthermore, 4gb and 2gb cards will always run at 99% because this particular game is GPU intensive and isn't limited much by modern processors.