Got 680 2Gb or 4gb

[G80FTW]

I have the 4GB 680 and yes it outperforms the 2gb version in more demanding games and settings for obvious reasons.

However, unless you can find it pretty cheap id say get a more a modern card. The 680 is a few years old now. But, im still gaming fine on mine but its starting to show its age.

 

[tylerjrb]

I agree the 4gb is better for obvious reasons and needed for today's games. And it's always better to have spare vram. Saying that the card is quite old. The 2gb Is hard to get hold of and the 4gb more so. I'm guessing it would be quite a bit more at which you could get a better card.

 

[Okedokey]

This is not about a 680 or other card, its about two 680s, one with 4GB VRAM and the other with 2GB. The simple answer is get the one with 4GB.

 

[G80FTW]

Its funny because when i got my 4GB 680 everyone here was telling me that 4GB was useless for this card as the GPU wasnt "powerful" enough to use it.

 

[Okedokey]

As were people at the time arguing with me that 4GB or system RAM was heaps....

 

[tylerjrb]

Its funny because when i got my 4GB 680 everyone here was telling me that 4GB was useless for this card as the GPU wasnt "powerful" enough to use it.

I'm not saying it wouldn't perform better. It would but marginally. My old card was a gtx 770 4gb. It hardly ever used over 2gb on max 1080p. Would it have warranted the extra cost, for me no. I wish I got the 2gb £50 for what 5 fps if that.

For example the r9 290x 4gb is £310 the 8gb is £390. Would the 8gb perform better than the 4 with 1-2 even 3 cards, no.

 

[Shane]

Personally,Id say go with the 4GB like mentioned,More future proof should you decide on a new monitor with bigger resolution,Or for newer upcoming games that are surely going to push 2gb cards to their max such as GTA V with its huge open world.

The GTX 670/680 are still more than capable of handling today's games and still get brilliant results.

 

[G80FTW]

I'm not saying it wouldn't perform better. It would but marginally. My old card was a gtx 770 4gb. It hardly ever used over 2gb on max 1080p. Would it have warranted the extra cost, for me no. I wish I got the 2gb £50 for what 5 fps if that.

For example the r9 290x 4gb is £310 the 8gb is £390. Would the 8gb perform better than the 4 with 1-2 even 3 cards, no.

Then you werent playing demanding games. Alot of todays games will use more than 2GB easily. It doesnt matter how good the card is, if the vram is available and the game needs it it will use it regardless of the gpu. And thats why more is always better.

And there might be many situations where an 8GB will outperform a 4GB in the future. In fact its almost guaranteed.

 

[tylerjrb]

Then you werent playing demanding games. Alot of todays games will use more than 2GB easily. It doesnt matter how good the card is, if the vram is available and the game needs it it will use it regardless of the gpu. And thats why more is always better.

And there might be many situations where an 8GB will outperform a 4GB in the future. In fact its almost guaranteed.

i was playing battlefield 4 at 1080p ultra with 4x FXAA. i agree mordor and watchdogs etc use a lot more because of there poor optimisation. I agree in the future 8gb will be needed but not with the current gen of cards. I also agree that if there is more VRAM the gpu will utilise it such as why you get 6gb usages on an r9 295x2 on shadow of mordor.

more isnt always better thats why a gtx 980 4gb still outperforms an r9 290x 8gb on 4k, the power is gone before it even eats over 4gb. if you had the choice between say a gtx 980 4gb or 8gb then sure the 8gb would be more future proof. but even on 4k maxed settings in SLI the power is all gone before it hits 4gb on any game.

with regards to the 680 2gb vs 4gb: http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForce_GTX_680_TGT_Ultra_4_GB/images/bf3_5760_1080.gif

 

[Shane]

Just thought id share another good reason to get the 4GB version.

I was planning to get another 670 2GB for SLI...so i can completely max BF4 with all the bells and whistles at 1920x1080.

Well it turns out,BF4 maxed out 1920x1080 on SLI GTX 670 (2gb versions) have a Vram issue..basically you will be playing with a very good frame rate then it will just suddenly drop into the mid 30s-40s then back up again...due to it needing more than 2gb of vram but its ran out which makes the frame rate plummet until it catches up.

I plan to get something like a GTX 970 4GB or something later on.

 

[G80FTW]

Just thought id share another good reason to get the 4GB version.

I was planning to get another 670 2GB for SLI...so i can completely max BF4 with all the bells and whistles at 1920x1080.

Well it turns out,BF4 maxed out 1920x1080 on SLI GTX 670 (2gb versions) have a Vram issue..basically you will be playing with a very good frame rate then it will just suddenly drop into the mid 30s-40s then back up again...due to it needing more than 2gb of vram but its ran out which makes the frame rate plummet until it catches up.

I plan to get something like a GTX 970 4GB or something later on.

Yup. Theres a decent list of games today that will use more han 2gb.

 

[tylerjrb]

Which is why I said in previous posts for SLI it will come in handy. It may use more than 2gb on most of today's games. Doesn't mean it will run a great deal faster though.

Obviously you should always get one with more VRAM but it doesn't always increase performance hugely.

 

[Okedokey]

Again, I don't see how SLI has anything to do with it?

 

[tylerjrb]

Again, I don't see how SLI has anything to do with it?

Again, you wouldn't SLI for 200fps 720p. You'd do it for higher res/ hz than a single card can achieve. You wouldn't want 30fps 1440p it would make you Ill. Therefore you may go SLI for 60fps 1440p which could eat 3-4gb VRAM. You wouldn't want 2 cards 2gb and run out of RAM in SLI.

Sure you could run a single card with the same resolution and VRAM usage but it would make you Ill due to low fps.

 

[Okedokey]

Regardless of how many cards, the same amount of VRAM will be used at a given resolution.