Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Video Cards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 08:37 AM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,210

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmanrigger View Post
As you stated, you are limited to 1 slot. You already said you were considering the GTX680, so if you consider yourself hardcore, go with it or the GTX690. At the very least, a GTX570.



You are correct when you said a single card wont substitute for a CF setup. But when it comes to gaming, there is no such thing as over kill with a Dual GPU config. Maybe Tri or quad, but certainly not Dual. AMD or NVIDIA. Any hardcore gamer demands the best, and there is no single card solution out there. Even at 1920X1080. An exception is as gba stated above, is the GTX690 or a GTX590. But again, dual GPU. But a pair of GTX680s or GTX580s can be bought for less, and will out-perform.

I also disagree that a GTX660Ti is going to cut it at 1920x1080 at max settings. Not a chance. I went from Dual-SLI 3GB GTX580 to a single 4GB GTX680, and at same graphics settings, there was a noticeable difference. The 580-SLI setup was butter smooth in BF3. With the single GTX680 at same settings, it didnt gimp game play, but there was a noticeable drop. With that said, I hardly think he would be satisfied with the 660Ti after giving up his CF config. Meaning; that if a 680 has to put out, how is a 660 going to cut it?

A person can of course get away with less for gaming. But well......compromise isnt hardcore.
I'm not sure what version of BF3 you're playing, but I assure you a single GTX680 does not have a problem with frame rates. In fact, an avg of 70fps on a 60Hz display is definitely what I would call overkill. A 660Ti is more than enough power to run 50fps on BF3 at Ultra settings.

I just ran the attached benchmark using FRAPS. I used a 48 person multiplayer map that was almost full, map was Bandar Desert, I spent most of the time in either a JEEP or a Tank Destroyer. All settings at Ultra, as per the screenshot. Avg framerate is 74.335 FPS. It drops down to 35FPS for a second, but 35fps is still an acceptable framrate.

Please stop trying to give bad advice.
Attached Images
   
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;

Last edited by great_big_abyss; February 11, 2013 at 05:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 09:24 AM
Soullessone21's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 1,322

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
I'm not sure what version of BF3 you're playing, but I assure you a single GTX680 does not have a problem with frame rates. In fact, an avg of 70fps on a 60fp is definitely what I would call overkill. A 660Ti is more than enough power to run 50fps on BF3 at Ultra settings.

I just ran the attached benchmark using FRAPS. I used a 48 person multiplayer map that was almost full, map was Bandar Desert, I spent most of the time in either a JEEP or a Tank Destroyer. All settings at Ultra, as per the screenshot. Avg framerate is 74.335 FPS. It drops down to 35FPS for a second, but 35fps is still an acceptable framrate.

Please stop trying to give bad advice.

Wow thats awesome FPS with fraps in the background and at 1200p but apparently your not a hardcore gamer :P haha.

Hmm I think I should spin up fraps a BF3 this afternoon with my 660 and we will test. Thinking the 660 as the min the 680 as overkill max for 1080p.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 09:58 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wayupnorth, Canukistan
Posts: 39

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
A single card (short of a GTX690) will not substitute for 2x6970's. However, if you're playing at 1920x1080, what you have is seriously overkill in the first place. You would be happy with a 660Ti, as that will allow you to set everything to Ultra, turn on FXAA, and still push out framerates >60.
Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
I'm not sure what version of BF3 you're playing, but I assure you a single GTX680 does not have a problem with frame rates. In fact, an avg of 70fps on a 60fp is definitely what I would call overkill. A 660Ti is more than enough power to run 50fps on BF3 at Ultra settings.

I just ran the attached benchmark using FRAPS. I used a 48 person multiplayer map that was almost full, map was Bandar Desert, I spent most of the time in either a JEEP or a Tank Destroyer. All settings at Ultra, as per the screenshot. Avg framerate is 74.335 FPS. It drops down to 35FPS for a second, but 35fps is still an acceptable framrate.

Please stop trying to give bad advice.
Not giving bad advise. Tell me how a 680 can put out as well as a pair of GTX580s. It aint gonna happen. There is a noticeable difference. If it is noticeable to the eye, it will be more apparent in numbers from a benchmark. Again, if a 680 is noticeable, a 660 surely will be. He is going from a CF config to a single card. If he wants or expects close to the same level of performance, a 660 is not going to do it.

Let us see an actual screeny rather than something that could have been contrived in notepad. Ultimately, it comes to how much money he is willing to spend. If you want the best, then buy the best. A 660 isnt the best by any means. Remember, he isnt going to a single card not because of cost, it is because of a hardware limitation.

Just offering help and a view point from what I have seen myself. Hell, a GTX480 will likely give a 660 a run for its money in raw 3D performance. That I cant confirm myself as I dont have a 660. But my money would be on the 480.

Last edited by xmanrigger; February 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 11:29 AM
Dzzope's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Irishman in Kiev, wOOoo, I'm an alien...
Posts: 2,737

My System Specs

Default

Going over 60fps no matter the card sli x-fire or just top end single card will show no difference to a lower card running at 60 fps.
This is because the VAST majority of monitors have a 60hz refresh rate and you'll suffer really bad tearing if you deviate much from it anyway.

A 660Ti will be plenty for 1080 in BF3.. HOWEVER, whats the point as it's only marginally better than a 6970 anyway.

The only case for upgrading from the 6970 is if the user in question finds that the MINIMUM fps is too low on a single 6970 and that it occurs too often and for too long.

Then and only then should he consider a larger card and that card should be 7970 / GTX 670.
GTX 670 will easily oc to 680 levels and be a fair amount cheaper. A 7970 will cost roughly the same as a 670 and match a 680 out of the box.

I personally find some fault in everything said above but also truth in it too. It all depends on what the user finds acceptable and at what price.
Give your opinion and leave it at that as that is all you can give. Nothing said above has much in the way of facts (as they tend to gloss over certain points)

The biggest problem IMO is the advice that
A) he'll need more but specing a card that is ROUGHLY the same performance (660)
B) He NEEDS to go all out to be happy.

To the OP, Please for the love of dog try one card. If you then find you want / need more, please by all means go ahead and buy a new card BUT make sure it's a real step up that you'll be able to notice and not a marginal one that you'll need a bench to see the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 12:07 PM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,210

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmanrigger View Post
Not giving bad advise. Tell me how a 680 can put out as well as a pair of GTX580s. It aint gonna happen. There is a noticeable difference. If it is noticeable to the eye, it will be more apparent in numbers from a benchmark. Again, if a 680 is noticeable, a 660 surely will be. He is going from a CF config to a single card. If he wants or expects close to the same level of performance, a 660 is not going to do it.

Let us see an actual screeny rather than something that could have been contrived in notepad. Ultimately, it comes to how much money he is willing to spend. If you want the best, then buy the best. A 660 isnt the best by any means. Remember, he isnt going to a single card not because of cost, it is because of a hardware limitation.

Just offering help and a view point from what I have seen myself. Hell, a GTX480 will likely give a 660 a run for its money in raw 3D performance. That I cant confirm myself as I dont have a 660. But my money would be on the 480.
1) On a 60Hz Monitor there won't be a difference between dual 580s and a 680. If the 680 pumps out 70FPS, and the 580s pump out 90FPS, the frames output by a 60Hz monitor is a maximum of 60FPS. Therefore there will be zero difference. As long as the 680 runs faster than 60FPS (it does) then you won't notice anything. A 670 will probably run a little faster than 60FPS. Bank on 60-65FPS.

I was talking about a 660Ti, not a 660. A 660Ti is a cut down version of a GTX680/670 with less memory bandwith (not an issue at 1920x1200). Count on a 660Ti hitting awfully close to 60FPS on Ultra in BF3. A 660 is a completely different chip, so yes, it will be a bit slower.

I would love to see Soul do a FRAPS benchmark using the same conditions as I did in order to compare framerates.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:10 PM
HiTi's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 237
Default

Thanks everyone for all the advice,suggestions, and taking the time to post info. Ends up that space is actually going to dictate what I get. Very poor planning on my part. The 6970's are almost a inch too long due to front mounted rad and fan.
So it looks like a 660 ti and up as long as it is under 10 inches is the only thing that will fit.
I'm leaning more towards a 670...seems like the smarter buy
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:12 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wayupnorth, Canukistan
Posts: 39

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_big_abyss View Post
1) On a 60Hz Monitor there won't be a difference between dual 580s and a 680. If the 680 pumps out 70FPS, and the 580s pump out 90FPS, the frames output by a 60Hz monitor is a maximum of 60FPS. Therefore there will be zero difference. As long as the 680 runs faster than 60FPS (it does) then you won't notice anything. A 670 will probably run a little faster than 60FPS. Bank on 60-65FPS.

I was talking about a 660Ti, not a 660. A 660Ti is a cut down version of a GTX680/670 with less memory bandwith (not an issue at 1920x1200). Count on a 660Ti hitting awfully close to 60FPS on Ultra in BF3. A 660 is a completely different chip, so yes, it will be a bit slower.
I backed up my opinion with real world use. You are only speculating. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between dual 580s and a single GTX680 in performance at 1920x1200. A big difference. Prove me wrong. As I said, if it is evident to the naked eye, a bench will only confirm.

660/660Ti, no matter. How can a 660Ti be a cut down of a 680 when it is less than a 670? You make no sense. 680/670 share same pcb, not much more.

Quote:
I would love to see Soul do a FRAPS benchmark using the same conditions as I did in order to compare framerates.
Why? What is wrong with posting legit screens of your benchmark above if you are so right? I can admit defeat. Prove me wrong.

You accuse me of offering bunk advise. Yet you are providing misleading information based on speculation. I back my claims by owning and using the hardware I am referring to.

This isnt real world, but go and run 3DM11 with a pair of GTX580s and then go run it with a single GTX680. Please show me a 680 score higher, both runs at Performance and stock clocks. If you like, I can show you my runs on the same machine. Only difference was VGA.

I hope the op finds this discussion useful, if not amusing. Bottom line, if you want bad-ass, get a 670 or 680, dont mess with a 660Ti, you will regret it. The 650\660\660Ti are 'budget' gamer cards. If you command power, no less than the GTX680.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:23 PM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,210

My System Specs

Default

I'm done arguing with you. If you refuse to listen to reason, then I have no reason to give you. Have a nice day.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:51 PM
Dzzope's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Irishman in Kiev, wOOoo, I'm an alien...
Posts: 2,737

My System Specs

Default

As long as the minimum frames are 60 it will such a small increase in performance (literally where 1 frame could take micro seconds longer to render) that spending double is insane

Xmanrigger.. a 680 has 1 SMX module disabled / removed and is labeled a 670... a 660ti is this cut down version OF THE SAME CORE and cutting back on the memory controllers, ROPs and L2 cache.
So it is, in effect, a cut down 680..
Please get your facts straight

AND a 660ti is NOT a budget card. not even close. it out performs the last generations top card in nearly everything and it's cost is not insignificant either. Mid level, yes, "budget" not this year or last. (maybe next)

3dmark synthetic tests giving you a score higher than another... wow thats great.. offers no real world benifits.
Take a 680.. 670.. hell even the "budget" 660ti and watch the actual core usage on them while cap'd to 60fps in any game and you will see what we mean.
We have already explained why you don't need or even want more than 60 fps on a standard monitor. The card will run at a fraction of it's max load.
My 670 generally sat at 80% load in BF3 (before I got my new monitor *grin*) therefore your 3dmark score is irrelevant.

Now where the extra performance is good is for those few short moments when something exceptional (large explosions, physics collisions etc) take your frames below the magic 60. Even then 45 (with adaptive v-sync) is more than acceptable to 98% of gamers. Below this and you will notice the difference, but it's how often it happens and how much your willing to spend to stop it that is important.

Your jamming the opinion of biggest is best down people's throats. And your probably pissing more than just myself off from it. The same is SLIGHTLY true of GBA, however he's not trying to force any issues. He stated that a 660ti is good enough to run everything max @60fps(which it can) and also what the minimum fps was and as such it would be his suggestion to go that way.

Please provide either opinion or facts. Not opinion as facts. Thats not to say everything you have said is wrong BUT there are some very large holes as shown above.

To the OP, pitty about the size. Bitfinx Prodigy would sort it easily enough?
As they say in the trades, "measure twice, cut once".
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old February 10, 2013, 06:51 PM
HiTi's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzzope View Post

To the OP, pitty about the size. Bitfinx Prodigy would sort it easily enough?
As they say in the trades, "measure twice, cut once".
Ya.. that's the worst...I am a tradesman...and should have done just that. I was more excited about cramming a bunch of gear into a small case and made some stupid mistakes. And add one more...as my 1000 w psu is not going to fit either.
Now at least I'll have a week to make some mods to the psu cage on the prodigy,probably sleeve some cables and pick up a gpu and a waterblock for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SLI or Single Card? pasteberlusconi Video Cards 17 August 19, 2011 10:23 PM
Recommendations for new card rolltideroll92 Video Cards 9 June 5, 2011 05:51 AM
Card recommendations Ghiness Video Cards 14 December 20, 2009 08:39 AM
BF2 Sound card recommendations Cowboy Gaming 11 October 7, 2009 02:30 AM
Video Card recommendations Maxtor Video Cards 28 February 20, 2009 03:35 PM