Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Video Cards (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/)
-   -   What kind of a real-world performance improvement would a 4gb 670 bring over 2gb 670? (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/55762-what-kind-real-world-performance-improvement-would-4gb-670-bring-over-2gb-670-a.html)

peppergomez July 29, 2012 09:56 AM

What kind of a real-world performance improvement would a 4gb 670 bring over 2gb 670?
 
I game at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor, and sometimes, for those games that work correctly using SoftTH, at 4960x1600 using two side 20" monitors in portrait mode (only games using DX9 or lower work using this). I play BF3, Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, flight sims, Arma2, and X3 Albion Prelude.

I had a terrible experience with two MSI 6970 Lightning cards in crossfire, so I sold them. That experience has me wanting to give NVIDIA a try for awhile. From what I have been reading, the 670 is a nice price/performance combination.

Because I game at fairly high resolutions and like all the settings maxed, and AA and AF on, I am thinking I would be better served by a 4gb card. Due to heat and space considerations, I am staying away from dual card solutions. Plus not all games play nice with dual cards.

I know a 690 would be the best card to get from a single card perspective, but I can't justify the price tag.

If I could gaame well on a 670, what kind of benefits (from a frames per second perspective) would a 4gb 670 bring over a 2gb 670' and is there a particular model and brand, like say the EVGA FTW, that folks recommend the most?

Thanks

Pabz0r545 July 29, 2012 10:49 AM

I can't answer your question really but I can tell you that the EVGA 670 FTW is the most sought after 670 as it is one of the best performing ones. If you read around on other forums you will see that it is a favorite. :)

Dzzope July 29, 2012 11:28 AM

At your res you should see some gains.. but can't say how much..

If you buy locally, you could try 2 2GB cards or 1 of each and then return what your not happy with.. Is a bit of messing about but will give you the best answers..

SKYMTL July 29, 2012 01:01 PM

In some games you will see a benefit. In others, you will actually experience slightly lower performance.

Phill July 29, 2012 05:26 PM

Quote:

Because I game at fairly high resolutions and like all the settings maxed, and AA and AF on, I am thinking I would be better served by a 4gb card. Due to heat and space considerations, I am staying away from dual card solutions.
Quote:

I game at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor, and sometimes, for those games that work correctly using SoftTH, at 4960x1600 using two side 20" monitors in portrait mode
IMHO a single 670 will not be satisfactory regardless of the frame buffer size. I game at 2560X1440 and I find that one 670 2GB is marginal in terms of pure processing power. I have yet to see my frame buffer filled FWIW.

LarkStarr July 30, 2012 02:35 AM

Are you kidding? A single 670 at those resolutions? You need some more horsepower man before you start worrying about the size of your frame buffer.

poohbear July 31, 2012 01:08 PM

with all settings maxed and AA, u'll need 2 4gb 670 (4gb each) in SLI. simple as that. 2gb is gonna become a huge hindrance in 2 years. Skyrim already pushes past 1.5gb with mods.

SKYMTL July 31, 2012 04:44 PM

Someone with enough money will be buying a new card AT LEAST every two years. So....a 4GB GTX 670 would be a waste of money.

Dzzope July 31, 2012 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 645737)
Someone with enough money will be buying a new card AT LEAST every two years. So....a 4GB GTX 670 would be a waste of money.

Soo this...


You still are looking at 2 cards Ideally.. BUT 2GB should be ok.. 3 GB would be better.. 4 GB *Could* be used but you'll run out of GPU power before you run out of ram.. Especially with a single card.

velias August 5, 2012 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peppergomez (Post 645208)
I game at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor, and sometimes, for those games that work correctly using SoftTH, at 4960x1600 using two side 20" monitors in portrait mode (only games using DX9 or lower work using this). I play BF3, Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, flight sims, Arma2, and X3 Albion Prelude.

I had a terrible experience with two MSI 6970 Lightning cards in crossfire, so I sold them. That experience has me wanting to give NVIDIA a try for awhile. From what I have been reading, the 670 is a nice price/performance combination.

Because I game at fairly high resolutions and like all the settings maxed, and AA and AF on, I am thinking I would be better served by a 4gb card. Due to heat and space considerations, I am staying away from dual card solutions. Plus not all games play nice with dual cards.

I know a 690 would be the best card to get from a single card perspective, but I can't justify the price tag.

If I could gaame well on a 670, what kind of benefits (from a frames per second perspective) would a 4gb 670 bring over a 2gb 670' and is there a particular model and brand, like say the EVGA FTW, that folks recommend the most?

Thanks


There is no benefit unless you're doing 5760x1080/1200 with lots of anti aliasing. This depends on the 3d application of course.

If you're a single screen user there is absolutely no reason to get 4gb, even up to 2560x1600. 2gb is plenty, there are no games with assets exceeding 2GB unless you do something stupid like 8x SGSSAA. (anti aliasing is the #1 contributor to VRAM use). So thats why usually you can get away with FXAA or no AA at 5760x1200, 2gb will limit you to that while 4gb will let you do 4x MSAA or something higher. (again -- this depends on application. Some games will let you do 2X msaa and others will run out of VRAM at 5760x1200 unless you do FXAA) Anyway, the point is you don't need 4GB since you're doing 2560x1600.

Its a tragedy that many people don't understand how VRAM works and how anti aliasing contributes to most VRAM use in modern games. (this isn't directed at you btw ;) I see people suggesting 4GB for 1080p and it really is quite stupid.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.