Upgrade: one 680gtx or get another 480gtx?

Hi all its that time of the month again and was wondering what you guys reckon i should do?

shall i buy a new 480gtx and go SLI or shall i buy a 680gtx?

current specs are:

• i7 920 @3.8ghz
• 6gm ram
• 850w Corsair AX Gold edition PSU
• Custom water cool loop powered by one 360 Rad and one Pump cooling both cpu and GPU
• 480GTX overclocked over 580gtx Speeds
• 120GB SSD hdd
• A couple of 1tb SATA mechanic hdd's
• A DVD drive
• A total of 8 120mm case fans(3 on the rad and the rest on the case which is a Lian li AC7010)
  

Games i want to play/play already:

• Batman archam City
• Arma 2 and Arma 3
• BF3
• RFactor 2
• Guild Wars 2
• Max Payne 3

Monitor resolution: 1920x1200

i know the 480gtx route is cheaper even when you add in teh cost of a new waterblock and possibly a new dual 240 Rad but can my psu handle it?

Does all the games above support SLI?

Another GTX480 if you are not spending too much on the extra cooling.

Edit!!

Since your CPU is overclocked it might be slightly pushing it:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...st-it/?page=10

The readings are at the wall so,it should be fine though and you have an AX850.

PSU will handle it whilst twiddling it's thumbs!

The only game on your list I have played under SLI is BF3. Which is 100% glitch free with perfect scaling.

But....for 1920x1200 I would seriously consider the 1 big card approach.....as long as you can stomach paying £400 for a card that shouldn't cost £400....

I always prefer the simpler route of a single card. +1 680.

How much will the GTX480 and water blocks cost together??

GTX480 cards are not too expensive now new or secondhand.

1 x 680 if you value your electricity bill and your image quality.

1 x 480 if you value the pounds in your wallet right now and just want moar FPS

Butuz

Seems like a waste of money to upgrade, when you only playing at 1080p, unless you play ARMA2 all the time.

No point upgrading as far as I can see.

Better spent on something nice for those ladies in your life.

OP has already decided to get a GTX680 and water block after asking on OcUK!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

OP has already decided to get a GTX680 and water block after asking on OcUK!:D

---

Well, that's totally overkill for 1080p.

Personally, I would spend the money on 2 more monitors for widescreen gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronWarrior

Well, that's totally overkill for 1080p.

Personally, I would spend the money on 2 more monitors for widescreen gaming.

---

no its not. try playing bf3 or batman archime city at full/max details with AA at 4x and see if u can get 50-60fps

edit:

here ya go. proof and thats on a 580gtx with no AA(fxaa is a gimped version of proper AA)

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...zRMQlH_4_1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408

no its not. try playing bf3 or batman archime city at full/max details with AA at 4x and see if u can get 50-60fps

---

I play BF3 at 5670x1080 on Ultra settings on a 6950 (unlocked and overclocked to 6970) and get up too 70FPS, the lowest I get is around 25FPS, while it normally hovers around 40-50FPS for most of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronWarrior

I play BF3 at 5670x1080 on Ultra settings on a 6950 (unlocked and overclocked to 6970) and get up too 70FPS, the lowest I get is around 25FPS, while it normally hovers around 40-50FPS for most of the game.

---

check my edited post. proof is there mate and you have not stated what AA level u use. my guess is none. and what game are you referring to? bf3?

Dips to 25fps is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY below what a lot of people call acceptable. In fact, I call that completely unacceptable.....and at that resolution, I bet your dips actually go lower then 25fps.

Dips to 40fps cause me to get annoyed....let alone hovering at 40fps....especially in FPS games where I can get motion sick when framerate dips below 60 regularly.

Everyone has a different level of acceptable.

Yup exactly and i dont think many apply AA in there game because AA rapes your GPU for breakfest lunch and dinner. it looks like the 680gtx cant even manage proper AA on that res above.

+1 for 680, 480 Sli is nice (and cheap) but tons of games go over 1.5GB VRAM now at 1080p, surround is nice on a single card hell even BF3 is playable on a single 680 at 1080px3 on high no AA. The new AA modes and vsync and turbo stuff really work and 3d is a whole new ball game on 680 vs even the 580. Downside is the price, yes they are a total rip off. But if you think there is more to games than just pure FPS like surround-3d-better smoother high AA_AF then GTX 680 is way to go.

My 680 handles SSAA in loads of games (like skyrim) in the exact way my 580 or 6970 never could. And AA in 3d in the way the 580 would just stutter and sulk.

BTW the 680 run so cold when on windows desktop you think they are faulty, they also run with very low noise and heat (even the ref' models) when gaming in the exact way a 480 can't.

480 Sli cheap FPS but some heat-cooing-power-Sli issues to contend with from time to time. 680 hassle free and loads of extras (at a price though).

i have done an initial outlay cost of the 680 and it will set me back £510 aproximately for the GPU and waterblock.

That is about as far as i would go for a high end GPU that needs to be kept and used for 2 years minimum. i always tend to try and skip a gen or two in GPU land and not one of those folks who upgrade a GPU every year/gen So really your looking at the cost of this GPU being 250 per year for 2 years :)

Now if u was to but a 6xx nvidia or 7xxx ATI thats 250, it wont cut it and u will most definetly have to upgrade that gpu again next year so in theory you end up paying £500 in total in a two year stint.