What CPU would a GTX 690 need?

yes the 3770 would run the 690 fine but really unless you are doing very CPU intensive tasks i would go for the 3570k and save your self some money
 
people always say that, however in a high gpu intense situation, id say get the 3770, just to make certain of unnecessary bottlenecks. though me myself id go 3770k and 680GTX, just cus i havent seen much good come from the SLI on a card situations
 
people always say that because in a gaming situation if you have a 3570k it is not going to be bottle necking the 690 at 100% lode so there is no need to spend the extra money on the 3770
 
*load.

and Some of that depends on the game. Some will perform better with hyperthreading. I see a 10 FPS difference in BF3 with HT off (basically making a 2500k of it). But then again at 120+ FPS your not going to see the difference without the frap counter in the corner.
 
Sweetiebelle said:
Would a i7 3770 run the GTX 690 okay? and what power supply should I use with the GTX 690?
Click to expand...

I think the real answer is: we dont know yet.

Since the 3770k is as far as I know the fastest processor on the market, we have nothing faster to compare it to.
 
I say get 2 680's which are faster than the 690 (the mhz is higher and it is the same setup, 690 is 2 downclocked 680's on one board), with a TX750 or better power supply.
 
jonnyp11 said:
I say get 2 680's which are faster than the 690 (the mhz is higher and it is the same setup, 690 is 2 downclocked 680's on one board), with a TX750 or better power supply.
Click to expand...

Its not the same setup though. You get alot more for your money with a 690 plus less power draw/heat output and its more efficient.

3FPS more in a game thats already running at 100fps is not justifiable.
 
jonnyp11 said:
they cost the same

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130781

vs 580 with backplate and overclocked

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130771

only a few bucks difference and it would be stronger
Click to expand...

But with the 690 you get 4GB of VRAM over 2GB. Worth it especially if you are going to pay near the same price you are going to want more for your money than a 2% performance difference.

4GB will show itself soon when games start using more than 2GB of VRAM at 1080p then there will be a large gap in performance between 2GB cards and 4GB cards.

Spending $40~ more on less VRAM but having the SAME GPUs makes no sense.
 
G80FTW said:
But with the 690 you get 4GB of VRAM over 2GB. Worth it especially if you are going to pay near the same price you are going to want more for your money than a 2% performance difference.

4GB will show itself soon when games start using more than 2GB of VRAM at 1080p then there will be a large gap in performance between 2GB cards and 4GB cards.

Spending $40~ more on less VRAM but having the SAME GPUs makes no sense.
Click to expand...

the 4gb's means 2gb per gpu, check these benches, the 5760x1200 benches all go to the 680sli and that res would probs benefit from the 4gb's if it were per gpu

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/586?vs=585
 
jonnyp11 said:
the 4gb's means 2gb per gpu, check these benches, the 5760x1200 benches all go to the 680sli and that res would probs benefit from the 4gb's if it were per gpu

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/586?vs=585
Click to expand...

No, the 4GB for the 690 is 4GB of VRAM. With 2 680s its 2GB. They would not be able to advertise it as 4GB if it was 2GB per GPU as the card itself would still only be able to utilize 2GB of VRAM total.

And again, we are talking about a 1-2% difference at the very best.

The 690 better be able to utilize the 4GB of VRAM otherwise they are false advertising their cards and need a lawsuit.

Games these days are not using more than 2GB of VRAM even at those resolutions, thats why you dont see a difference between the 2GB 680 and 4GB 680 right now at any resolution.
 
G80FTW said:
No, the 4GB for the 690 is 4GB of VRAM. With 2 680s its 2GB. They would not be able to advertise it as 4GB if it was 2GB per GPU as the card itself would still only be able to utilize 2GB of VRAM total.

And again, we are talking about a 1-2% difference at the very best.

The 690 better be able to utilize the 4GB of VRAM otherwise they are false advertising their cards and need a lawsuit.

Games these days are not using more than 2GB of VRAM even at those resolutions, thats why you dont see a difference between the 2GB 680 and 4GB 680 right now at any resolution.
Click to expand...

I know someone here had i think it was a 1gb 3870x2 and he said it only had 512mb vram, the card has 1gb or 4gb's on it so it isn't false advertising. also, it is stated in reviews

The memory subsystem of the GeForce GTX 690 consists of four 64-bit memory controllers (256-bit) with 2GB of GDDR5 memory per GPU (4GB total). The base clock speed of the GeForce GTX 680 is 1006MHz and the typical Boost clock speed is 1058MHz. NVIDIA left the memory speed unchanged, so both the GeForce GTX 680 and the new GeForce GTX 690 have the memory running at an impressive 6008MHz (effective).
Click to expand...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1921/1/

was the first on google

and the 680's are nearly 10% faster at normal speed and about 4% faster turbo'd and that's the normal closcks, the 680 i linked would be faster than that

dual. 680's. is. better. end of story
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11 said:
I know someone here had i think it was a 1gb 3870x2 and he said it only had 512mb vram, the card has 1gb or 4gb's on it so it isn't false advertising. also, it is stated in reviews



http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1921/1/

was the first on google

and the 680's are nearly 10% faster at normal speed and about 4% faster turbo'd and that's the normal closcks, the 680 i linked would be faster than that

dual. 680's. is. better. end of story
Click to expand...

Theres still the power consumption. But anyway, Im glad I dont subscribe to dual GPUs in any form. Too much grey area of crap.

And I dont care if the card has 2TB of RAM onboard, if it can only utilize 2GB of that 2TB I would still call up whoever I bought it from and tell them that it is false advertising.
 
G80FTW said:
Theres still the power consumption. But anyway, Im glad I dont subscribe to dual GPUs in any form. Too much grey area of crap.

And I dont care if the card has 2TB of RAM onboard, if it can only utilize 2GB of that 2TB I would still call up whoever I bought it from and tell them that it is false advertising.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does beat the 680's in power consumption. Really this is a stupid argument, either will do great and kill everything else, the real question should be what his case is? i think a lot of cases have issues with 11" cards right? might not do well with a 10" either.
 
I vote for the 690 as well. You really can't go wrong either way, but the 690 does have advantages. The combination of less heat, less power, no chance of possible SLI issues, and more Vram for very similar costs and pure performance seems to be a no-brainer. Also, everything else being equal, I would go with 1 card over 2 anyway.
 
Last edited:
Mishkin said:
I vote for the 690 as well. You really can't go wrong either way, but the 690 does have advantages. The combination of less heat, less power, no chance of possible SLI issues, and more Vram for very similar costs and pure performance seems to be a no-brainer. Also, everything else being equal, I would go with 1 card over 2 anyway.
Click to expand...
complete and utter bullshit. a 690 as far as windows, the drivers, and games are concerned is a 680 SLI card. It will still have SLI issues if there are any to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top