Best vga to play at max res 1680x1050 - 670 2Gb or 4GB?

[Xotana]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks in advance for all feedback.

I can buy either an Asus GTX670 2GB OC @1058 boosted clock or the 4GB model with boost clock @980.

At the maximum resolution of my LCD, 1680x1050 (won't be upgrading as I'm already too close to the LCD), will the 2GB model be enough to run Skyrim with mods,

HD textures and all eye-candy enabled and with ultra settings? Or will I need to go with the 4GB version?

 

Reply as realistically as possible as besides Skyrim I also Play BF3, Borderlands2, Saints Row: The Third, Assassin's Creed 3....always at 1680x1050

 

 

Thank you.

[kalikka]

Take the 2gb.

Or take r7950 windforce and OC it to gtx680 level, like I did.

OR take r7970 ghz edition that beats GTX680 without any OC.

 

My stupidly modded skyrim eats way over 2gb vram, but it also makes the game unstable. I have noticed that I cant take more than 3 followers (with supa-HD textures/eyecandy) with me as it makes my game crash more than usual when I enter/leave cells. Whenever the follower enters the screen --> vram usage goes up by ~200mb/follower.

Edited December 1, 2012 by kalikka

[FMod]

670 doesn't benefit from more than 2GB of VRAM even in the most intense usage scenarios.

At 1680x1050 you have less to worry about too.

 

Just because game N records a peak X MB of VRAM occupied doesn't mean it really needs X MB - a lot of that can be old no longer used data that isn't flushed because why.

[kalikka]

"Skyrim breached 2Gb vram@1080p"

Same kind of thread in OCN.

That thread basically tells you how heavy mods you can use. Ofc the low-res screen you are using also lowers the vram usage.

As you can see, the guy with 6950 2Gb had problems with running out of vram.

 

I still recommend 7970 or 7950, both are as powerful or more powerful than gtx670. But cheaper and have more vram.

But if you need physx/cuda, nvm.

Edited December 2, 2012 by kalikka

[Rennn]

You won't notice a difference with a 670 past 2GB, not on a modern engine at that bandwidth. The 4GB cards only currently exist for people running triple eyefinity rigs.

 

Yes, in a massively modded PC killer of a game, you may at times exceed 2GB. However, if you have a game modded that heavily, chances are the engine would become unstable anyway, and the bandwidth of a 670 wouldn't even be sufficient to operate 4GB of vram in such a scenario.

 

So go for the cheaper option, because 4GB is not plausible or needed unless you use 3 monitors at once.

[FMod]

It's mostly ugridstoload, a performance sucker setting that's best left alone except for taking screenshots and such. Kills any CPU anyway.

The Crossfire guy is running 3D, it's the same as having two displays (uses two cameras and two virtual displays to render to).

[Dan3345]

My game regularly caps over 2gb's of VRAM, but I have lots of graphical mods..

 

Anyways, at your resolution you won't need more than 2 gigabytes.

[kalikka]

Just tested tridef on skyrim (havent used it for a while since the ENB doesnt work well with it).

The vram usage went straight to 3025MB ;D

Maybe I should uninstall some of the mods... 82 active mods + texture replacers is a bit too much :P

[Rennn]

I don't use HD textures, but a friend uses the full 2k texture replacement for Skyrim on a single monitor, and it doesn't break 1GB. So unless you mod things to insanity with eyefinity or 3d, you don't need more than 2GB.

[FMod]

It doesn't really matter in any case though. It might matter for a 680 - but a 2GB 680 costs about the same as a 4GB 670 and will be faster in games 100% of the time.

The only marginal use I see for these (4GB 680's) is in SLI driving multiple displays - as a single card you'll be bottlenecked by the chip - but even so, in practice, 2GB rarely gets touched. Skyrim torture modes get bottlenecked by the CPU, not GPU or VRAM anyway.