Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Another GTX 690 vs. TITAN question, but with a twist

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Titan
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
28 March 2013 12:15:39

Okay, so I've been browsing the interwebs for a time now, trying to figure out which of these two cards would suit me the best. But absolutely every answer is answered as if the asker is planning to upgrade GPU within a short time frame. That is not my plan.

So, to make things clear: I am not going to use a SLI/CrossFire setup. Ever. I don't care if it's better or cheaper or anything like that. It's too advanced for me, and I don't want to wrap my head around how such configurations work. So I'm not interested in which of them is best for future SLI, or some other alternative like "x2 Radeon is better than x1 GTX 690".

Also, I'm playing on a single monitor 1920 x 1080, and what I want from the card is for it to last as long as possible. I want the card to perform at top notch (or close) graphics at 1920 x 1080 with 50-60 FPS for as long as possible without needing to be replaced or added to. As in, if one of them would be predicted to get sub-30 fps on ultra quality graphics on games within 2 years, and the other within 4, then I want the card that lasts 4 years.

So to sum up, I'm not interested in which card is most suited for SLI upgrade later on, or some other alternative SLI configuration. I'm just wondering which of those two will perform best on 1920 x1080 for the longest amount of time. So far I've got the impression that GTX 690 is the faster and more powerful card, but Titan is better for tri-monitor setups (which I don't need, obviously).

In other words I'm so far resting on 690 being the best card for long-term usage with top/near top graphics quality. Any objections?

UPDATE: When you guys say the GTX 690 is SLI and has less support for games: Is this a common thing, and/or something I should be worried about? Does it often happen that new games, both corporate and indie, do not support SLI configurations? Or does it mostly happen with old games? I don't want the GTX 690 is every game I play turn out to be a gamble on whether it'll work or not.

And if it matters, my computer is mainly for use as an editing suite, not gaming. I use programs like After Effects, Premiere Pro and Avid a lot. If one of the GPU's are better for that purpose than the other, that matters as well.

More about : gtx 690 titan question twist

28 March 2013 12:32:31

The 690 is SLI on one card.
It has 2 670 chips on the pcb .
So it has the advantages and disadvantages of SLI.
m
0
l
28 March 2013 12:38:45

2x 680s I think you'll find :) 

Yes the 690 will give higher frame-rates than a Titan.
m
0
l
Related resources
28 March 2013 13:04:31

Unolocogringo said:
The 690 is SLI on one card.
It has 2 670 chips on the pcb .
So it has the advantages and disadvantages of SLI.


Oh, I don't mind that. As long as it still "handled" as one card, I'm good. It's when there's physically two cards needed to be connected and configured as two individual cards that I have a mental failure. I just want there to physically be 1 independent card in my computer. Doesn't matter if it's actually two cards in one, as long as it's only one physical card.

You make me curious now though, what are the advantages and disadvantages of SLI?
m
0
l
28 March 2013 13:20:23

this is a rather tricky question. Of course the gtx690 is more powerful and would give you relatively better performance on games right now. Its 2gb vram(Single gpu) should suffice at 1920x1080. However, now that the next generation consoles are being released, I think its going to drastically change how future games will be written. That's what beings the possibility of titan performing better than the gtx690 in future if video games start to require more video ram. We do not know what the future of gaming holds for us but titans 6gb vram makes it seem somewhat more future proof. I personally dislike sli/cf and as far as I am concerned, the gtx690 is a sli gpu that means you will have to wait for the drivers to be updated to support sli for a game and what not and also for future games that support physx, the gtx690 would automatically allocate one of its gpu to work as a physx card so you will get half the performance. In all honesty, I highly doubt either of those gpus would max out all the future games with 50-60fps -there will always be some games that would bring gpu down on their knees. But, since you are worried about being future proof, my intuition votes titan.
m
0
l

Best solution

28 March 2013 13:20:59

Titan vs GTX690

GTX690:-
More powerful
Cheaper

Titan:-
Physically smaller (it's the size of a GTX580)
Consumes less power
Exhausts all hot air to the rear (the 690 recirculates 50% of the hot air within your case)
Best alround support for games (not all games can use a dual card/gpu setup so are limited to just one of the cards/gpus, some games actually run worse with it)

A note on SLi - SLi and crossfire are supported a lot better than they used to be but some games are just not designed to run with them, this can result in the game only utilising a single card or running worse than it would with a physical single card.

Personally, putting cost aside and accepting that the Titan is slightly less powerful than a 690, these are all the reasons I chose a Titan.
Share
28 March 2013 18:58:41

If you want something that is future proof, then grab a Titan. 2GB of vram is not future proof, even at 1920x1080. I've got a 2560x1440 display and games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 3, and even Battlefield 3 use over 2GB of vram with maxed AA. Crysis 3 uses about 2.8GB with MSAA x8. You can bet your ass that Battlefield 4 will use close to 3GB as well at this resolution. You can expect 2GB or more on future titles at 1920x1080, so the 690 will not allow you to max out your AA.

I have to question why you're limiting yourself to 1920x1080 though if you're willing to spend $1,000 on graphics alone. 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600) is the new standard for single monitor high-end gaming. If you're going to stick with 1920x1080, just got with some cheaper cards. The Titan is meant for super enthusiasts, not casual 1920x1080 folks. A 4GB GTX 680 or 7970 GHz will suffice for 1920x1080. Want to be future proof? Buy 2. SLI/Crossfire is not complicated at all.
m
0
l
28 March 2013 21:47:19

gridironcj said:

I have to question why you're limiting yourself to 1920x1080 though if you're willing to spend $1,000 on graphics alone. 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600) is the new standard for single monitor high-end gaming. If you're going to stick with 1920x1080, just got with some cheaper cards. The Titan is meant for super enthusiasts, not casual 1920x1080 folks.


I have no space for more than 1 monitor, and I figure on 1 monitor the card will last longer than on several anyway. My rig is already expensive because I plan to use it for both video editing (I work as an editor), and hosting a server. The price of my RAM and processor far outweighs the price of the GPU, so I just figured that if I dish out some extra money for a future proof card I can avoid needing to upgrade any parts in the near future.

gridironcj said:

A 4GB GTX 680 or 7970 GHz will suffice for 1920x1080.


I want what lasts the longest, period. Price is not an issue at all, so I'm not looking to save money - I'm looking to save hassle by making sure the card lasts as long as it can.

gridironcj said:
Want to be future proof? Buy 2. SLI/Crossfire is not complicated at all.


Even if it's not complicated, I've read up on it more, and I definitely don't want all the trouble of SLI/Crossifre. Especially considering I like to follow indie titles, which are bound to have problems with SLI/Crossfire. Given this new information, and the new information that the 690 is basically SLI, I've already dediced that I'm going for Titan. I'll rather have a more future proof, reliable and slightly slower single-GPU card, than a soon to be outdated, and awkward SLI-in-disguise card.
m
0
l
29 March 2013 03:06:28

Threethumb said:
gridironcj said:

I have to question why you're limiting yourself to 1920x1080 though if you're willing to spend $1,000 on graphics alone. 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600) is the new standard for single monitor high-end gaming. If you're going to stick with 1920x1080, just got with some cheaper cards. The Titan is meant for super enthusiasts, not casual 1920x1080 folks.


I have no space for more than 1 monitor, and I figure on 1 monitor the card will last longer than on several anyway. My rig is already expensive because I plan to use it for both video editing (I work as an editor), and hosting a server. The price of my RAM and processor far outweighs the price of the GPU, so I just figured that if I dish out some extra money for a future proof card I can avoid needing to upgrade any parts in the near future.

gridironcj said:

A 4GB GTX 680 or 7970 GHz will suffice for 1920x1080.


I want what lasts the longest, period. Price is not an issue at all, so I'm not looking to save money - I'm looking to save hassle by making sure the card lasts as long as it can.

gridironcj said:
Want to be future proof? Buy 2. SLI/Crossfire is not complicated at all.


Even if it's not complicated, I've read up on it more, and I definitely don't want all the trouble of SLI/Crossifre. Especially considering I like to follow indie titles, which are bound to have problems with SLI/Crossfire. Given this new information, and the new information that the 690 is basically SLI, I've already dediced that I'm going for Titan. I'll rather have a more future proof, reliable and slightly slower single-GPU card, than a soon to be outdated, and awkward SLI-in-disguise card.


2560x1440 (or 2560x1600) IS one monitor. 1920x1080 almost isn't enough to see all of the small details in a game like Crysis 3. I would highly recommend one of these monitors if you plan on spending $1,000 on graphics alone.

There isn't much trouble with SLI and Crossfire. All that is needed are driver updates for SLI profiles, which are updated quite frequently. You'll find yourself wanting more in the end, trust me. I currently have 2 Titans and I know a third will be needed down the road. Once you've tasted the best you'll want more of it!

Your decision on getting a Titan is the right one. The drivers are only going to get better for it and it will eventually outperform a 690 on most games, rather than just new games. I would recommend getting the Superclocked Titan. It's $20 more and you'll get better performance right out of the box. Enjoy your Titan!
m
0
l
29 March 2013 04:11:56

Get the Titan, all games will support single GPU, but many dont support SLI. Some support it, but perform worse with SLI.
Lower size, heat, power draw.
And if you decide to SLI in the future, getting a second Titan is a bigger upgrade than a second 690.
m
0
l
30 March 2013 08:45:54

gridironcj said:

2560x1440 (or 2560x1600) IS one monitor. 1920x1080 almost isn't enough to see all of the small details in a game like Crysis 3. I would highly recommend one of these monitors if you plan on spending $1,000 on graphics alone.


Well, even if I can afford it, I'm not going to lay down 300-400 dollars and make sure my GPU gets outdated faster just to see a little more detail in Crysis 3. I'm laying much money into this because I'm planning it to be a lasting investment, so it'd be counterproductive to now suddenly further increase my need for power, and thereby effectively make sure I need to upgrade faster than I would've with my current monitor. If I'm going to upgrade my monitor, I'm only going up in inches, not pixels.
m
0
l
7 April 2013 02:34:11

I'm just curious since I am in your shoes and have the same wants.... Did you buy the Titan?
I want a card to run FSX with ALL my add on's and have no issue with momentary bumps of 200FPS when REX is dumping weather....

m
0
l
7 April 2013 07:10:18

Tobin69 said:
I'm just curious since I am in your shoes and have the same wants.... Did you buy the Titan?
I want a card to run FSX with ALL my add on's and have no issue with momentary bumps of 200FPS when REX is dumping weather....


Yes, I did go for the Titan! It hasn't arrived yet, but let me ask. Are you saying you don't want your FPS to go too high?
m
0
l