that is technically not true. since you go out of your way to mention "max ultra settings" at 60fps there are games like Witcher 2, Clear Sky and Metro 2033 that cant be run like that. heck that cant even fully be pulled off in the original Crysis or Warhead. there are also some games that would barely make the cut so minimums would be below 60fps quite often which matters to some people.There are no games out right now that a single 680 can't play at max ultra settings at 60 fps at 1080p. There probably won't be either until late this year or next year. By then you can upgrade again
I agree. I use a gtx 680 on a 30" monitor and play BF3/SC2/D3 with maxed settings except AA (since I don't see a difference with AA at 1600p) and the most I've even seen it use was 1.5 gb, and typically less than 1 gb.
A long time. Like I did not even need it. Was fine on GTX 580. But I found best way to buy graphics cards is buy best nvidia product day they are released and sell the last best same week. Only loose ~ $100-150 every year or two.
This works for me because I water cool and water blocks depreciate faster than motor homes so it's best to sell them while card is still considered fast. Like a GTX 580 block you can actually sell for $80 while you won't sell a GTX 285 block right now.
If I wait too long I'm out huge depreciation on card in addition to $110 water block.
i like to play at 1080p with all the settings at max. i like to see all the eye candy and i'm a very visual person. i like to see the game in it's maximum possible visual glory & beauty just like game designer intended it to be....
anything above 40 fps in the most demanding areas of a game is good enough for me.
Completely irrelevant. GK104 is the same in nVidia's line up as Pitcairn is in AMD's. AMD just doesn't do the giant monolithic chip and that trickles down to the rest of their line. So, all of their chips are smaller. Difference being GK104 is much more competitive perf/mm^2 and perf/w than Fermi was. This is likely due to the stripping of the compute capabilities.I found this post by raghu78 on another forum quite interesting:
Nvidia does not have a GK100. Their entire product stack has moved up in pricing. This is possible because Nvidia's DX11 implementation in GTX 480 was more aggressive than AMD's HD 5870.
The two companies have ended up very much in the same place. They just took different paths to get there. The biggest difference is a philosophical one, nVidia believes building giant monolithic chips is the best way and AMD believes it isn't. One of these days nVidia will hit a home run and get their big chip working first try. Or, AMD will move ahead because while nVidia is trying to get their last design working AMD is releasing their next.AMD had to make significant investments in DX11 tesselation and compute performance which Nvidia made in Fermi GF100. Whereas Nvidia regressed with compute performance in GK104. Thats why HD 7970 is of a larger die size with superior compute performance and will have better longevity (more bandwidth for demanding games).
Fermi was very aggressive in its DX11 implementation with 4 GPC,4 raster engines, 16 polymorph engines, 48 ROP. GTX 680 has 4 GPC, 4 raster engines, 8 polymorph engines (ver 2.0), 32 ROP. Even with higher core clocks in GTX 680 the resources are not doubled. Thats why you have to wait for GK110 aka GTX 780 to realize the true successor to Fermi GF100/ GF110.
This is a good thread.
I had a 580 but I gave it to a kid who is into gaming but poor and lost his dad in a car accident.
I thought what the hell I'll use a 4870 that I had lying around.
But u know what I spent all my savings on a 680 cuz I know it will last a long time and u have confirmed that.
I have been a good person so i know god will help me to recoup that money.