LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks2x gtx 670 would be a good option as they are not much slower then the gtx 680. best buck for bang and you want daul id go 670's
2x gtx 670 would be a good option as they are not much slower then the gtx 680. best buck for bang and you want daul id go 670's
They are the better option but there are few little niggles that put me offOriginally Posted by mbkuk1
Exactly, i also don't like the placement of the power connectors when running the card on air. Nvidia could have extended the pcb, mounted the fan on it and put the connectors at the side even
ASUS' GTX670 Direct CU II TOP edition tramples all over a stock GTX680 thanks to it's very aggressive boost settings. Plus it's built on a 680 PCB so you haven't got that issue of a powerful card looking like a mid-range one (if that really bothers you).
If you're looking at WC and overclocking yourself, the MSI 670 OC has an 80Mhz offset (965MHz base, 1045MHz boost). That's the biggest offset I can find in stock at Scan (although the ASUS TOP is very close at 79MHz), and it's only £322 - £56 less than the ASUS and £90 cheaper than a stock GTX680. OTOH it's built on the compact PCB, and apparently PCB size matters...
The Gigabyte 670 uses a reference 680 PCB, if that's any help!
edit: The Asus 670 doesn't use a 680 PCB, but I think it's a similar size to it.
Last edited by teppic; 15-06-2012 at 02:06 PM.
Ahh didn't know that, i thought it was a non-ref design because of the 3 fans, will look into this one. Also does gigabyte support watercooling, such in the removal of the heatsink etc. as i think some manufactures won't RMA, something along those lines
What resolution will you be gaming at? This can make a difference. My friend playing SWTOR probably peaks at 900Meg VRAM running at 1920x1280 with non-maxed graphics settings. I hit 1.5Gig on a low population server with maximum settings @2560x1600. Heaven benchmark reaches about 1.9Gig of VRAM used. The importance? For higher resolution gaming the 2Gig of VRAM on the Nvidia 6 series may not have the desired longevity. I read plenty of reports of BF3 using 1.8Gig+ of VRAM as well. Just something to factor into your decision making.
At the moment im gaming on a 22" 1920 x 1080 screen, but plan to add 2 more to the setup sometime end of this year.
Yup, your right about the high vram usage on some games. Hmm, i hear Nvidia have 4gb versions as well
whats your budget
Yep, the 670 4GB versions are running £400-430 on Scan at the moment.
Depends on your budget? Are you aiming to get maximum performance for price?
Don't really have a budget, i'm just looking for the best performance, put the cards under water and not upgrade for a while
go for the 6970 or the GTX580 this will last you for ages without the need to update for a while if your gona watercool it
If you're buying a year ago, maybe.go for the 6970 or the GTX580 this will last you for ages without the need to update for a while if your gona watercool it
I was considering the GTX580 but decided on the 680'sgo for the 6970 or the GTX580 this will last you for ages without the need to update for a while if your gona watercool it
The GTX 580 would be a very bad choice, the 670 makes it completely irrelevant at its current price. Second hand it's not so bad, as you'll find it for under £200 now, but if budget isn't an issue then there's nothing to consider.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote