DSOGaming writes: "Nvidia has released a new WHQL driver for its graphics cards. According to the changelog, this new drivers offers performance improvements on GTX 690 (ray tracing fans will be delighted to find out that there is up to 60% faster performance in ray tracing applications), updated SLI and 3D profiles for various games, as well as a security update for the NVIDIA Display Driver service."
40°
30°
40°
80°
Ad 
40°
20°
30°
20°
20°
20°
Also don't hate on people who can afford a $1000 graphics card.
Where did I ever say I hate them? Just because they are stupid, is a completely different meaning from hating someone.
"If somebody earns the money to buy it, they are free to do what they want with their own money."
Where did i ever say they should be jailed for spending too much for getting too little? Just as they are free to do that, I am free to have the opinion that are idiots. And obviously some will think Im the fool for having my opinion.
The thing that annoys me is some people who completely misinterpret a statement, based on on (well I would say stupidity), but to sugar coat it, on an assumption like: o you said you dont like that decision, thus you must hate them. Quite the fail logic there.
I'd caution people considering a GTX 690 to carefully consider that it only has 2 GB of VRAM per GPU. You don't just sum up the VRAM on a multi-GPU setup as some are led to believe by manufacturers labeling it a 4 GB card. In reality, it's like a 2 GB SLI setup in terms of VRAM.
I've exceeded 2 GB of VRAM at just 1080p in two games already, Crysis 2 and Max Payne 3. Crysis 2 hit around 2.2 GB without any mods. I'm pretty sure you're going to see more of that in the near future. I wouldn't recommend buying a high end card with less than 3 to 4 GB VRAM. Don't count on Crysis 3 or GTA V to always stay under 2 GB VRAM if you're going to try to run it at a high resolution with High/Ultra settings.
http://cloud.steampowered.c...
http://www.newegg.com/Produ...
is it the same? 2gb of vram per gpu?
im thinking of building a pc soon, just wondering.
To have a total of 4 GB of VRAM available, you'll need 4 GB per GPU, which is what I have currently (2x GTX 670 4 GB SLI).
We're just getting to the point that 2 GB won't be enough for max, especially if you're heading into really high resolutions. You'll probably only actually need 3 GB of VRAM for awhile for max unless you are going to make some sort of super-enthusiast, multi-monitor setup, but I caution people spending $500 for a card unless it has at least 3 or 4 GB or VRAM. I posted that pic of Max Payne 3 to demonstrate that you can go over 2 GB VRAM at 1080p already. Crysis 2 was the most VRAM hungry so far unless you get into mods. If you're thinking of using mods and/ or SSAA, you'll need more than 2 GB.
It really depends on how far you want to push it. Very high resolution textures and especially high end AA are generally what gobbles up the VRAM most. If you don't mind 2x MSAA, you probably won't need more than 2 GB VRAM right now, but if you aren't interested in top end graphics, why consider a $500 to $1000 card in the first place? There are much more economical alternatives.
I'm hopeful that a more advanced form of anti-aliasing emerges soon, as MSAA or SSAA are murderous to frame rates with deferred lighting. In Far Cry 3, anything above 2x MSAA gives me an unstable frame rate even with the high end setup I put together. I'm hoping more games give the option of TXAA, as that didn't destroy my frame rate in Assassin's Creed III and looked pretty good. I actually wish I could try turning TXAA up another notch in AC3, as I have plenty of power to spare. There was talk of TXAA being added to Battlefield 3, but that never happened.
Dropping down all the other stuff doesn't affect my frame rate however with env detail set to very high my fps drops to 40:@
No GPU fanboysim from me; I buy had about 50/50 Nvidia/AMD. I think they both make some pretty awesome cards.