# 2x GTX 660Ti 2GB SLI OR GTX 680 4GB?



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

I just traded my Radeon 5970 2GB/4GB (2x2GB) Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz SDRAM/Corsair AX850 PSU/and Dell 21.5" ST2220L 1920x1080p monitor for an EVGA GeForce GTX 550Ti 2GB/Corsair GS700 psu/27" ASUS VG278H 3D monitor+NVidia 3D glasses.

I am currently looking at getting 2 EVGA Superclocked GeForce GTX 660Ti 2GB gpu's OR, a single EVGA Classified GeForce GTX 680 4GB gpu for 3D gaming. (I am not worried about price at this moment because I just got a huge raise at work today... FINALLY)

Any way... one of my questions is, Which will give me better performance at 3D games... 2 660Ti 2GB gpu's or a single 680 4GB? I have thought about getting a GTX 690, BUT... I do not really want to buy another dual-gpu because I can get 2 seperate gpu's for less. 

Does anybody know how well the 680 4GB does compared to two 660Ti's? Also, does having 2688 cuda cores vs 1536 help much in 3D games?

I guess my last question is.... (actually I have tons of them), Would I be wise to hold onto my 550Ti 2GB and wait until Sapphire releases their Sapphire Toxic Radeon HD 7970 6GB GDDR5 graphics card? I was quite thrilled to find out that that card actually hasn't been cancelled, but rather delayed.


----------



## jonnyp11 (Aug 19, 2012)

the toxic 6gb is a waste since no game will use 6gb's untill it is so far outdated it's pointless. I would go for a 7970GHz though ties with the 680 performance but costs less and has 3gb's vram. As for performance, a 660ti sli would be better, but microstutter is an issue and there are many driver issues when games come out, and a single 7970 will kill any game for a good time, and a second can be added later instead of replacing 2 cards.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 19, 2012)

jonnyp11 said:


> .., but microstutter is an issue...



Based on what?  Ive never seen it.  Had multiple SLI and CF setups.

Even if it were an issue, nvidia's Adaptive vsync has sorted that.

I agree though, the single 680 is a better option.

You would be insane not to get the 680.  Two 660s may be slightly quicker now (depending on drivers), but you only get 2GB of VRAM, thats it, forever.

The 680 will be as quick overclocked and have 4GB VRAM which is above the current crop of games' requirements (unless massive screen realestate), but it will soon be met.

You also have the additional option of down the track if you need it, another 680.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

Wow.... just got done looking at videos of the 7970 3GB eating the heck out of games, pretty impressive performance! And I didn't realize the 7970 could play games in 3D too. I can get an XFX Radeon HD 7970 3GB for almost $300US cheaper than 2 660Ti's. Looks like I'm getting an XFX Radeon HD 7970 3GB gpu rather than 2 660Ti's. 

A GTX 680 would be nice too, but I think I will try out the 7970 3GB card first. Only problem is... my NVidia 3D glasses will/will not work with an AMD card? If that's the case then I'll probably go with a GTX 680 4GB gpu. (I hate when it comes to changing gpu's..... I can never make up my mind.)


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

Heck..... I think I will go for an EVGA Classified GTX 680 4GB gpu rather than the Radeon 7970 3GB, just to avoid having the NVidia glasses not work with the 7970 for 3D games. (Unless I find out that NVidia glasses might work with AMD gpu's. If they do, I might spring for an XFX 7970 3GB.) 

Does anyone know if NVidia 3D glasses work with AMD cards?


----------



## claptonman (Aug 19, 2012)

Where does the glasses plug into, if they do? I don't know 3D glasses, so I'm just guessing.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

claptonman said:


> Where does the glasses plug into, if they do? I don't know 3D glasses, so I'm just guessing.



The glasses themselves are wireless, and the IR receiver has a USB plug-in.


----------



## jonnyp11 (Aug 19, 2012)

Not sure but thinking it should work with amd.

where did you find a 7970 for 300 bucks? and you'd want the 7970 Ghz edition, they are overclocked like hell, otherwise it is slower than a 680.


----------



## G80FTW (Aug 19, 2012)

bigfellla said:


> Based on what?  Ive never seen it.  Had multiple SLI and CF setups.
> 
> Even if it were an issue, nvidia's Adaptive vsync has sorted that.
> 
> ...



This is really all that needs to be said.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

jonnyp11 said:


> Not sure but thinking it should work with amd.
> 
> where did you find a 7970 for 300 bucks? and you'd want the 7970 Ghz edition, they are overclocked like hell, otherwise it is slower than a 680.



..... Maybe I should have been clearer. What I meant was that I can get an XFX 7970 3GB for 300 US dollars LESS than what I'd pay for (2) GTX 660Ti 2GB gpu's. I was looking at used gpu's on ebay... but no thanks.... the last time I bought a used gpu off ebay it lasted a month and a half.

I kind of drifted away from Radeon cards because I like NVidia's Physx feature.

Right now I am going back and forth on whether I should get one of these:

EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC 4GB:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2580892&CatId=7387

or..... an EVGA GTX 680 2GB SC Signature 2:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3184504&CatId=7387

or this EVGA GeForce GTX 680 4GB:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3184513&CatId=7387

what are your opinions on these cards?


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 19, 2012)

G80FTW said:


> This is really all that needs to be said.



Understood Sir.


----------



## G80FTW (Aug 20, 2012)

dudeh8109 said:


> Understood Sir.



As a 680 4GB owner myself, I can tell you that its the best on the market.

The only game that gives me any trouble is ArmA 2 but Iv been told thats more of a CPU thing than GPU....but even so, I get 45FPS average on that maxed out at 1080p so it aint like a slideshow and it looks good for DX9.

And Iv also been playing with the 32x CSAA 8x supersampling with FXAA enabled and havent even seen any performance impact in any games yet.  Which goes to show, games are not even making good use of this card yet even if your getting only 45FPS but going from 0 AA to 32x CSAA with 8x SS has no effect on performance, its the games problem not the cards. Obviously the card still has plenty of horsepower to give that these ported console crap games are not using.

Its a shame really that I feel like I wasted money on it though because game developers wont pull their head out of their ass for the past near decade so going from an 8800 to this 680 wasnt as intense as going from my GeForce 2 to my 6800 Ultra.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 20, 2012)

I've never played ArmA 2 before, but 45FPS is still pretty good to me. This is the card I ended up getting:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3184513&CatId=7387

should serve me well several years down the road.... as I don't plan on upgrading this card for some time. How well does it handle PHSYX, coupled with everything else games throw at gpu's? (I'm contemplating on whether I should use my EVGA GTX SC 550Ti 2GB just for PHYSX..... or is that overkill?) 

Actually.... come to think of it, I don't think I can use my 550Ti for PHYSX because I only have a 700 watt psu. I need to find out what the power consumption/requirements for the two cards combined are. I should have kept my Corsair AX850 but couldn't pass up a good deal on a $700-ish ASUS 3D monitor. Oh well... I can make do with the 680 4GB for now.


----------



## G80FTW (Aug 20, 2012)

dudeh8109 said:


> I've never played ArmA 2 before, but 45FPS is still pretty good to me. This is the card I ended up getting:
> 
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3184513&CatId=7387
> 
> ...



There is currently nothing out that will phase it. Even if you have 4 monitors and 3D at like 5000p you should still get 60FPS in everything...

And this card is still new.  Wait till next year, the drivers will be a ton better so maybe another 10% performance increase once they get fully optimized along with better game optimization as well Id say this card will last about 6 years or so like my 8800 did before I cant play games on high settings.


----------



## tech savvy (Aug 20, 2012)

G80FTW said:


> There is currently nothing out that will phase it. *Even if you have 4 monitors and 3D at like 5000p you should still get 60FPS in everything...*



Overderadrating a little? 

This show the 680 hitting in the low 20fps in games. 

here- http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 20, 2012)

tech savvy said:


> Overderadrating a little?
> 
> This show the 680 hitting in the low 20fps in games.
> 
> here- http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555



Will all due respect.... I'm not sure what "Overderadrating means".... although I'm 100% certain of what you meant to say.

Some of those numbers in the link you posted certainly made me cringe and that sound that you hear when you scrape your nails across a chalkboard was playing in my head as I was looking at them.

Keep in mind that I will only be... and always have been playing games in 1920x1080 or 1680x1050 which is what I prefer. (I like the 1680x1050 benchmark for Metro 2033.... gotta give that game a try when my 680 gets here.)

Thanks for that link by the way tech savvy.... I'll use that for future reference.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 20, 2012)

tech savvy said:


> Overderadrating a little?
> 
> This show the 680 hitting in the low 20fps in games.
> 
> here- http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555



Yeah im not sure what overderadrating means.  I cannot even say it.

lol

Anyway, yeah a single 680 would get pumped at that resolution.  Even 580s in SLI don't get 60FPS at that resolution.

But the extra vram is worth considering.  Even at 1080p with texture packs on a modern game, that will push 2GB vram.

Secondly, the 660 is just a 570 with a lower memory throughput.  This makes it about a 15% slower card due to an approximate 30% reduction in memory buffer transfer speed.

So the single 680 is a better option all round.  Sure the 660s are nice cards, and they'll be awesome in SLI, but if you want SLI for the sake of it, just get a 680.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 20, 2012)

bigfellla said:


> Yeah im not sure what overderadrating means.  I cannot even say it.
> 
> lol
> 
> ...



I actually did get an EVGA GeForce GTX 680 4GB rather than 2 660Ti's. 
And probably will SLI the card 3 or 4 years down the road..... if ever. I am tiring of dual-card setups because usually more often than not a single card will get the job done for me.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 20, 2012)

You chose well because the other issue i forgot to mention is heating issue you would have faced.  Dual slot cards have minimal clearance on most motherboards that your top card would get super hot.  I had to watercool.  Not option except running at 98oC and these were top coolers (Windforce).

So you have your new PSU too?

You will notice a big setup i reckon!


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm not sure what you mean by "new psu", but the psu I have in my Intel/Nvidia setup is a Corsair GS700 V2 (and it is used). I did have an AX850 that I had in my FX-4100/ATI 5970 setup, but I traded my 5970/Corsair AX850/4GB (2x2GB) 1600 C.Vengeance/and Dell ST2220L monitor for an EVGA GTX SC 550Ti 2GB and an expensive 27" ASUS 3D monitor and NVidia 3D glasses. 

IF..... you mean I have my new GPU, then no, I don't have it yet. It should be here in about 1 1/2 to 2 weeks.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 20, 2012)

Yeah sorry my bad, several similar threads right now, all good PSU front.


----------



## jonnyp11 (Aug 20, 2012)

you may run into fps issues due to it being a 4100 rig.


----------



## dudeh8109 (Aug 20, 2012)

jonnyp11 said:


> you may run into fps issues due to it being a 4100 rig.



The GTX 680 4GB? If that's what you mean, I have absolutely NO plans of installing the 680 into my FX-4100 setup. (The FX-4100/Radeon 5970 2GB setup that I had didn't go too well together. That's why I was more than willing to replace the 5970 2GB with a Radeon 5870 1GB). A 4100 and 5870 pair does better in my opinion than a 4100 and 5970.

I will be replacing my GTX 550Ti 2GB with the 680 4GB whenever it gets here. I am fairly certain my i5-2500K and the GTX 680 will "play nice".


----------



## Virssagòn (Aug 20, 2012)

dudeh8109 said:


> The GTX 680 4GB? If that's what you mean, I have absolutely NO plans of installing the 680 into my FX-4100 setup. (The FX-4100/Radeon 5970 2GB setup that I had didn't go too well together. That's why I was more than willing to replace the 5970 2GB with a Radeon 5870 1GB). A 4100 and 5870 pair does better in my opinion than a 4100 and 5970.
> 
> I will be replacing my GTX 550Ti 2GB with the 680 4GB whenever it gets here. I am fairly certain my i5-2500K and the GTX 680 will "play nice".



yeah, that would be no problem. Don't try with the 4100


----------



## G80FTW (Aug 20, 2012)

tech savvy said:


> Overderadrating a little?
> 
> This show the 680 hitting in the low 20fps in games.
> 
> here- http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555



Theres only one game on there that is below 30FPS.  

Damn impressive if you ask me.  And also, I have the overclocked version so Im looking at higher averages than whats listed there. 

Metro 2033 maxed out at 2560x1600 with a listed 37FPS average? Pretty impressive if you ask me.  I get 60 constant at 1920x1080.

Also remember, the link you posted is listing the 2GB model not the 4GB.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 22, 2012)

Its not the average FPS that matters, its the MIN.  If that is below 30FPS, the game ill be terrible to play, particularly first person shooters.


----------



## G80FTW (Aug 22, 2012)

bigfellla said:


> Its not the average FPS that matters, its the MIN.  If that is below 30FPS, the game ill be terrible to play, particularly first person shooters.



No man. It depends on where and when that min FPS comes in.  My FPS has never dropped below 45 in any game other than GTA4 and Arma2. I get over 80 FPS in the Forest demo from the Cryengine 3 with everything maxed and it never goes below 60.

If you average 45, and for a split second you drop to 25 and stay above 40 for the rest of the time that split second drop doesnt mean anything.

With those benchmarks, its hard to tell how that minimum FPS was experienced. Average is more important.


----------



## Okedokey (Aug 23, 2012)

G80FTW said:


> No man. It depends on where and when that min FPS comes in.  My FPS has never dropped below 45 in any game other than GTA4 and Arma2. I get over 80 FPS in the Forest demo from the Cryengine 3 with everything maxed and it never goes below 60.
> 
> If you average 45, and for a split second you drop to 25 and stay above 40 for the rest of the time that split second drop doesnt mean anything.
> 
> With those benchmarks, its hard to tell how that minimum FPS was experienced. Average is more important.



I disagree. If you average 45FPS in a first person shooter and every time action hits it drops to 22FPS, that is the important number, the MIN, not the average.


----------

