GeForce GTX 680 2GB and 2560x1440?

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by PR-0927, Oct 3, 2013.

  1. PR-0927

    PR-0927 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC+
    Hey guys, long time no post on Guru3D! Anyways, I seem to have acquired some funds for use as I see fit. I've been eying one of those QNIX QX2710 Evolution II 27" 2560x1440 displays.

    Here's the thing - I'm currently playing games and maxing out everything at 1920x1200, with no problems. BF3, BF4 Beta, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, you name it. Literally the ONLY thing I've had to sacrifice so far is the highest AA setting in Total War: Shogun 2 (which, based on benchmarks, at 1080p/1920x1200 a GTX 690 or Titan seemed necessary for an acceptable FPS) - this hardly bugged me, since I comfortably had it on the second-highest AA setting...plus it's a strategy game - not a real need for high FPS.

    Oh, and this is after messing with the NVIDIA Control Panel and setting the AA to 32xCSAA and the transparency AA to 8xSSAA. Meaning my games are all undergoing the control panel-based additional demands (along with adaptive v-sync, triple buffering, 16xAF, etc.).

    All games are running, as mentioned, acceptably. Meaning that I've seen a minimum of 35-40 FPS or so (near-constant 60 FPS in BF3 with v-sync, and roughly 50 FPS in the BF4 Beta). I am NOT someone who needs 60 FPS on everything. As long as it isn't a slideshow, and preferably anything above a minimum of +-30 FPS, I am totally happy. My preference is to sacrifice AA when I have an FPS hit, NOT any other graphics settings.

    However, the appeal of a nice IPS/PLS display at a much higher resolution is hard to ignore. I also, however, do not want to sacrifice maxing out graphics options - but AA I can do without, if need be (especially as at such high resolutions, AA matters WAY, WAY less than at lower resolutions). Seeing as benchmarks show the GTX 680 to play BF3 at roughly 42-45 FPS on average at 2560x1440, my assumption would be that BF4 at the same resolution, maxed out, wouldn't be much slower.

    I do have a factory-OCed GTX 680 (only a slight OC) as well, so I typically see average FPS levels higher than the stock GTX 680 on most games.

    So basically, the question is, will I be disappointed if I get a 2560x1440 monitor without changing my GPU? I have NO money to upgrade the GPU (the funds allotted me are hardly enough to afford a GTX 680-trumping GPU). Obviously I should be fine for a few months with virtually every game, but how much will my "maxing-out" lifespan be reduced by going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440?

    Any recommendations would be much appreciated!
     
  2. lucidus

    lucidus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,068
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    MSI Gaming X GTX 1070
    I think you'll face problems with VRAM in particular at that resolution, especially in upcoming games.
     
  3. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Well 2GB vram prob won't be enough, however you should still buy that monitor because the GPU is gonna get upgraded at some stage.

    You don't want to buy another monitor in like 2yrs time just cause u got a new GPU right....until then just lower the res or graphics if need be...
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
  4. nakquada

    nakquada Master Guru

    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1080 FE
    I play at 2560x1600 with 2GB 680s and never have an issue.
    I get 90-100 fps on Ultra in BF3/BF4 with AA enabled.
    That's SLI though, I've tried with SLI disabled and still get almost as good.
     

  5. maxx126

    maxx126 Member Guru

    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI 980 Ti Gaming GE 6GB
    I have two 4GB 680's in SLI and a monitor with 2560x1440. Based on my experience, you won't have a problem with 2GB ram (I haven't seen a game coming close to that limit yet) but one card won't cut it.
     
  6. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Um, how does your experience with 4GB SLI relate to the OP's single 2GB card?

    Btw if you haven't seen a game use 2GB vram then go play ArmA3 on Ultra settings, or Skyrim with HD pak, or Crysis 2, or BF3.....or...the list goes on....
     
  7. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    1 680 at that resolution is pretty weak
     
  8. Netherwind

    Netherwind Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,914
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    MSI 1080Ti 2038/12006MHz
    What are you guys saying?

    I definitely see VRAM stuttering while playing BF4 on Ultra settings @ 1200p. The VRAM usage peaks and occasionally I get these stuttering when moving to an area where VRAM is missing information.

    Same thing goes for Crysis 3 on Very High when using 4xMSAA @ 1200p.

    I'd love to have two 4GB cards to get rid of this problem (which, I admit, is not very big at the moment but will be in the future).
     
  9. maxx126

    maxx126 Member Guru

    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI 980 Ti Gaming GE 6GB
    I haven't tried Skyrim but I tried the rest and none of them reached 2GB even with AA like 4X AA on BF3 at Ultra Settings @1440p according to MSI Afterburner.

    So my cards being 4gb instead of 2gb doesn't change anything because they are not utilized. At the moment at least...

    As I said to him, he'll have a problem because of the single card not 2GB memory.
     
  10. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    That all depends on the workload, if he runs out of vram not even quadfire will improve performance.

    And you can't have tried ArmA3, otherwise you'd know it uses over 2.5GB vram at max settings.

    Anyway I think he should buy the monitor regardless......
     

  11. PR-0927

    PR-0927 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC+
    Well I did a LOT of research after the above comments, haha. Here's what I found out:

    • Benefits between the 2GB and 4GB variant of the GTX 680 are literally not more than 2 FPS in any game I looked at, at 2560x1440 or below - when differences arose they were for much larger, multi-monitor setups, and the differences were still smaller than expected.
    • I looked at the recent GTX 780 Classified review on Guru3D - there are 2560x1440 benchmarks for virtually every game - the GTX 680 2GB has completely acceptable FPS for every single game, for me.
    • If need be I will lower or turn off AA - this SUBSTANTIALLY improves FPS, and IMO, hurts image quality the least - I would rather have very high-res textures, high poly counts, etc.
    • The whole "uses 2.5GB of VRAM" thing is apparently very misunderstood by most. Apparently almost every modern game adapts to whatever VRAM quantity you have, and because of the way texture s t r e a m i n g (why is this word censored?) is setup (like with BF3), VRAM usage isn't as big a deal as people think. Mostly it's been widely regarded as more of a marketing gimmick for single-monitor resolutions and smaller...even with the most taxing games, high-res texture packs, etc.
    • On that note of VRAM, increasing AA substantially increases VRAM usage over other graphical things.


    So basically, I think I'll be good with what I've got for a reasonable time span. Now to wait for a good Black Friday sale...
     
  12. LinkDrive

    LinkDrive Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Toaster
    I do a lot of downsampling on my 2gb 680. I run a lot of games at 3840x2160, or if the fps is too low, then I bump it down to 2880x1620. I have not come across a game that won't run properly at 2880x1620 even with MSAA.

    Honestly, 1440p is cake for a 2gb 680. You are more likely to run out of GPU horsepower than vram with current and near futture games. If you want to grab a 1440p display, I'd say go for it, and grab a GTX880 when they come out.
     
  13. Veteran

    Veteran Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,089
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    2xTitan XM@1590Mhz-CH20
    I do not thimk you would get a constant 60fps with a single 680 and get a constant 60fps at 1440p. There is no way especially with Nvidia Inspector AA settings nvm the BS ingame settings.
     
  14. LinkDrive

    LinkDrive Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Toaster
    That's nice.
    When did I say anything about maintaining 60 fps?
     
  15. lucidus

    lucidus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,068
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    MSI Gaming X GTX 1070
    Do post back with your results. I want to see how it does outside of the usual suspects like Battlefield and Crysis.
     

  16. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    No, it is a big deal and most certainly not a gimmick.

    All you need to do is ask the people who have 1.5-2GB cards and can't play BF3 at ultra settings (or any other game) even with SLI because of the stuttering and fps dips.

    They may avg 50fps but that doesn't show you the actual gameplay experience..... at the end of the day it's your decision..... :nerd:
     
  17. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,779
    Likes Received:
    50
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    Pill bf3 maxed out at 2560x1440 4xmsaa+4xssaa with my old 2 680 2gb cards was cake. Bf3 scales vram usage on whats available by strea ming parts of the level further ahead, ie textures. I dont know why everybody thinks bf3 is a vram hog when its simply not. Bf3 will use over 3gb of vram on some maps. Are you telling me that because of that 3gb cards and below will be a stutter fest? nope. Its all in the game engine and how it utilizes memory

    Other games werent a stutter fest(except skyrim heavily modded) either..
     
  18. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    ^Well I suggest you go check out the BF3 thread and read all the comments posted by people with 1-1.5GB vram who will disagree with you.

    It's the future that matters anyway, not the past. Iin 2yrs time 2GB will be like 1GB is today....


    **Btw this is a bit silly debating it don't you think - whatever opinion we have, we are all in agreement that he should get the monitor right?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
  19. rflair

    rflair Don Commisso Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,771
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    GTX 980/290X
    I game with a 2GB 670@1.2Ghz at 1440p and its acceptable.

    BF3 runs well, no AA, haven't played in awhile so I can't remember the numbers but I can check if you want.

    The 1440p for desktop is fantastic.
     
  20. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,779
    Likes Received:
    50
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    Im just commenting on the "2gb isnt enough for bf3". hell back then 580 lighting sli i had was 1.5gb and it wasnt a stutter fest maxed on 1080P. I agree that its not enough for some games and def not for future games but the fact of the matter is that it does not apply to bf3. dice has already said that vram is scaled based on actual amount available. stuttering can be caused by a number of things other than lack of vram.
     

Share This Page