690 or Titan

[AryanXD]

Hey, I'm building a new gaming rig in a month or so. I was wondering if I should get a Titan or 690, I'm mainly doing 1080p gaming but plan to get a 2560x1440 monitor and start up photo-editing. Should I wait till the new line of Nvidia Cards of get a Titian/690. 

 

Thanks for the opinions,

 

 

[Nexus]

Between those two cards I would get the titan as i think the 2gb vram in the 690 is far too small for 1440p gaming, especially if you want it to last a while.

[nickpc]

690

[Kidbest100]

Get a Titan.  It will help photo editing because of the performance applied to it due to it using GK110

[tp95112]

Titan just because of the resolution your playing at

[CarDesinr]

Titan is optimized for higher resolution gaming and it has 6 GB of vram will definitely help. Also it has 1 GPU processor rather than the 2 of the 690, it will also help when new driver updates come out. So better performance overall for the same price.

[virusal19]

For 1080p, get a 690 but since you will be playing on a 2560x1440 soon. I recommend getting a Titan because of its larger amount of VRAM allowing you to play at higher resolution.

[G.Freeman]

690

[mgsstar]

I would get the Titan because more games are starting to require more and more vram in order to render the graphics at highest settings.

[G.Freeman]

I would get the Titan because more games are starting to require more and more vram in order to render the graphics at highest settings.

LOL not really. More Vram is used when more monitors are used though.

[tabuburn]

690 or you can wait and see how the upcoming 700 series will perform.

[xAcid9]

GTX690 or wait next gen which will be release in a couple of months. Getting a Titan right now is not quite wise imo.

[XiaoPigs]

I say neither and wait for the 700 series to be released since they'll most likely provide better price to performance ratios 

[Art Vandelay]

Between those two cards I would get the titan as i think the 2gb vram in the 690 is far too small for 1440p gaming, especially if you want it to last a while.

It's really not. Even at triple 1080p, you don't really need it for most games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-geforce-gtx-670-4gb_7.html#sect5

 

 

You could go with either. The performance difference isn't all that significant, especially at a high resolution, since the 690's is limited by its memory bus to some degree. I'd probably go with titan, personally.

[tabuburn]

It's really not. Even at triple 1080p, you don't really need it for most games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-geforce-gtx-670-4gb_7.html#sect5

 

 

You could go with either. The performance difference isn't all that significant, especially at a high resolution, since the 690's is limited by its memory bus to some degree. I'd probably go with titan, personally.

The graphs on that link you posted show the 670 with a 4GB VRAM beating a 680 with only 2GB especially with AA on.

[Art Vandelay]

The graphs on that link you posted show the 670 with a 4GB VRAM beating a 680 with only 2GB especially with AA on.

It's losing by 1FPS in both benchmarks at 1440p, when it's at the same clock speed as the 2GB. I wouldn't call that winning. It's not losing by much in the triple monitor section either.

[tabuburn]

It's losing by 1FPS in both benchmarks at 1440p, when it's at the same clock speed as the 2GB. I wouldn't call that winning. It's not losing by much in the triple monitor section either.

Remember that both the 680 and 670 4GB VRAM versions still only have 256bit memory interfaces. Not enough to really make use of more than around 3GB.

 

Also, newer games that have higher res textures will really make use of a lot more VRAM. MSI Afterburner is showing over 3GB of VRAM use on my Titans at 1440p. Same goes with my heavily texture modded Skyrim.

[Art Vandelay]

Remember that both the 680 and 670 4GB VRAM versions still only have 256bit memory interfaces. Not enough to really make use of more than around 3GB.

 

Also, newer games that have higher res textures will really make use of a lot more VRAM. MSI Afterburner is showing over 3GB of VRAM use on my Titans at 1440p. Same goes with my heavily texture modded Skyrim.

Texture modded skyrim seems to be a bit of an anomaly in regard to VRAM usage. Most games these days don't seem to use nearly as much Vram as it.

[G.Freeman]

Texture modded skyrim seems to be a bit of an anomaly in regard to VRAM usage. Most games these days don't seem to use nearly as much Vram as it.

True that Skyrim is the only game that uses lots of Vram but then again even when the Vram buffer fills up it does not tangible hurt smoothness and framerate only a minor hic up here and there. I play all games just as well as a 2gb 7850 on my 1gb 7850.

[Hyydrah]

Between those two cards I would get the titan as i think the 2gb vram in the 690 is far too small for 1440p gaming, especially if you want it to last a while.

2GB is plenty for that resolution.

[tabuburn]

True that Skyrim is the only game that uses lots of Vram but then again even when the Vram buffer fills up it does not tangible hurt smoothness and framerate only a minor hic up here and there. I play all games just as well as a 2gb 7850 on my 1gb 7850.

Yup. I'm getting frame drops on my 690 only every several minutes indoors in the game. Outdoors is another thing and the drops are more frequent and last longer. But like I said, mine's a rare-insane case since not many people use the 4K res textures.

[G.Freeman]

Yup. I'm getting frame drops on my 690 only every several minutes indoors in the game. Outdoors is another thing and the drops are more frequent and last longer. But like I said, mine's a rare-insane case since not many people use the 4K res textures.

"When it comes to gaming performance the XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Core Edition did better than expected with a screen resolution of 1920x1080! We were able to easily play all the current game titles at 1080p with the image quality settings cranked up! There were a few game titles like Skyrim where we felt a minor hiccup here or there when the frame buffer would fill up, but they were few and far between."

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2048/13/

[tabuburn]

"When it comes to gaming performance the XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Core Edition did better than expected with a screen resolution of 1920x1080! We were able to easily play all the current game titles at 1080p with the image quality settings cranked up! There were a few game titles like Skyrim where we felt a minor hiccup here or there when the frame buffer would fill up, but they were few and far between."

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2048/13/

I said on my use case scenario. Not the average person's. You try switching Skyrim's 1K textures to 4K and play it at 1440p.

[mgsstar]

LOL not really. More Vram is used when more monitors are used though.

Saw this video and the most that it would use it less than 3gb on a 1080p monitor when using AA. So you were right. Going to hold off the video because getting many mixed results...

[G.Freeman]

Saw this video and the most that it would use it less than 3gb on a 1080p monitor when using AA. So you were right. Sorry made a mistake :(

Cite the source of that Video as I don't trust just anyone that edits in numbers that might have been skewed espcially when they did not use afterburner etc.