Graphics This is why we need more VRAM on our GFX cards! IMG HEAVY!

A reason 'Why' Kepler needs more VRAM...as 2GB is not going to cut it for us mere mortals!

So here's 'Some' examples of using 2.75GB of VRAM! (Not System Ram...) In Crysis 2 maxed to the hilt in DX11 and Forced in NV control Panel to use 16x AF and 16XQ CSAA @ 2560x1600. Running @ 60FPS.

 

:I..... this looks absolutely stunning! well yes the V Ram limits are being approached much faster than anyone anticipated!! and as we see with Nvidia... well they dont seem to care

but then take their perspective!! how many games truelly use this much V-ram....

Still amazing quality!! enjoy the gameing on this!

 

Ohhh, im going to go re-install this now and finish it! havnt tried it on my new res of 2560x1440 yet though, so will be interesting to see how the gtx 480 stands up.

 

aww yh

 

Is something off with the FoV on those pictures? They make my head hurt. Anyways, most vendors will probably have an 4 gig version a la GTX 580 and 560 have double VRAM versions, for example.

 

In other words, high res monitor users need to pay more.

I can understand a mid range card being under specced like this but not the top end model.

For the power available from a single card, I guess 2GB is just about sufficient, but hands up who wants to SLI or have the option at a later date?

 

FOV is perfect for 16:10 monitor......

As someone else has commented, the pics look Stunning, almost photo realistic in some shoots.

Yes there is going to be a 4GB GTX 680, but when will that be available...Probably several months after the release of the GTX 680.

Here's Some BF3 comparisons. Maxed out with 4x MSAA. Varying between 2.1GB and 2.4GB VRAM usage.

 

Much as I'd like to pick up a couple of the 680's at launch, I think I'm going to have to wait for the 4GB versions. Being a flagship card, Nvidia should've just made them all 4GB to start with.

 

I think you will fine anyone with a 2560x1440 monitor or higher resolution screen, will be doing the same.

But then, I don't have a reason to upgrade, as I can max out every game...(Just trying to convince my self that I don't need to buy Kepler...It's not working)

 

Thanks for sharing. Any for Battlefield 3?

Hmmmm, I really don't know what to do now. There is no doubt I need a next gen card. The 3GB 580's are very very expensive, and I certainly can't afford two, plus two waterblocks.

Fingers crossed for a lovely price war between the 7970 and the 680.

 

I just came away from a 2hr online war in BF3, I knew I should of got some screen shots...I will later.

 

You could, you know, turn down the settings...




I know, I know, I'll get my coat.

 

...

 

To be honest though, what percentage of consumers have a 1440p or 1600p monitor? Most people have a 1080p/1200p monitor and so >2GB VRAM isn't needed. So nVidia releasing a 2GB and then 4GB version is more financially stable on their part, as they are producing cheaper 2GB cards for the majority, and then more expensive 4GB versions for the hardcore guys like yourself

 

this is true tbf. i can understand their logic

 

well, to be a nazi about it, nvidia doesn't release the 4gb card...the board partners do...nvidia just gives them the reference stuff...o.0

i will now excuse myself

 

Its true. We are in the minority. That said, its a £400 part and the mainstream isn't its target audience. You should be getting all the bells and whistles available.

 

@ Parge - Exactly my point!

 

Now perhaps people will believe me when I tell them I can't run BF3 ultra on my dual 560Ti SLI 1gb GDDR.

 

There are no rumours of a 4gb version coming out on launch, but even for a 400+£ part I can see why they would do that. Few people game at res higher than 1920x1200. Hopefully they will have 4GB version out within a month or two.

BTW, I'm not sure whether this is an issue with art design or graphics quality but something about those screens feels a bit off. Can't exactly say what, but I was not very impressed.