GTX 680 2mb vs. GTX 580 3mb for this software?


GTX 680 2GB vs GTX 580 3GB are my two choices for use with Luxology modo 501 and Maxwell Render unbiased rendering (don’t have yet), Foundry Mari (don’t have yet). The two cards are about the same price, are different GPU architecture and the 680 has less memory than the 580. I am running Win7 64bit with Intel i7 2600k.


edit: no animation, just large stills


2 or 3mb is clearly not enough. I would recommand at the very least a GeForce2 MX with 32mb of ram.


Foundry Mari has GTX 580 as one of their approved cards. Any particular reason for your suggestion?


i think he was just joking, because you wrote MB instead of GB :wink:


lol, yep. GBs is what I meant.


Sorry for the confusion. :beer: Not much help I’m afraid…


No problem.

It’s interesting that I haven’t been able to get a definitive answer to this in other places. Interestingly, one person has said the GTX 680 (not referring to 2GB RAM) is not a good card for 3D work.

And, no one has been able to answer GTX 580 3GB vs. GTX 680 2GB.


The 580 is Mari certified, the 680 isn’t (yet).
RAM is THE bottleneck for Mari, mudbox and for GPU rendering.

Not hard to pick one. Pick the 580 with 3GB.
And next time use the hardware forums for hardware questions, please, not GD :slight_smile:


This was what I was thinking also. And, will do=>Hardware.


Interestingly, one person has said the GTX 680 (not referring to 2GB RAM) is not a good card for 3D work.

i heard the same thing from someone who bought it when it came out, they said its good for games which isn’t a surprise.


They’re going to be releasing a version of the GTX 680 with 4GB, which would be much better than the 580 3GB

However, it could be possible that Mari doesn’t support the GTX 680. For instance currently with iRay it doesn’t support it.


Right, the guy from The Foundry told me that if the specific card isn’t on their list doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work… it only means they haven’t put it through their testing procedures. It would be an expensive risk I’m not willing to take. I’ll be getting the GTX 580 3GB probably; I can always wait until the GTX 680 4GB becomes easy to get and meanwhile read about its use with Mari from people who have tried it. Meaning, the 2GB version has been around for a while now and it still can’t be kept in stock with the well-known N.American online retailers. It will probably be the same for the 4GB version. Some European companies have already released 4 GB ones (Gainward, Palit), and I believe EVGA will be out with theirs very soon.


I wish I had 2 4GB GTX 690’s :drool:


The GTX 690 is actually 2GB (2GB for each GPU)


Well, you should be able to have 2 690 cards with 8GB - 4x2GB


To play what games? Because at this point there is nothing in our industry that quite benefits from SLI in general, let alone narrowing and splitting VRAM access, even with brilliant hardware based synchronicity :slight_smile:

Get a 580, deal with the poor Maya double shading issues, and call it a day for now, IMO. x90s, SLI, and other narrower but higher multiplier solutions are more pain than anything right now, when even used at all.


Each core gets 2GB and everything has to be loaded into the memory for each one. The memory isn’t distributed.


Dude, you get 4GB total for the card, the 2 cores with 2GB each = 4GB, and if you have two 690’s, you could have 8GB. Here’s a review -


The 690 runs the two cards separately, so yes, there are 4GB of ram attached to one slot, but no, that doesn’t mean you get 4GB of potential contiguous footprint, each of the two GPUs only has access to 2GB.

It’s literally two 680 in SLI on a single slot, nothing more. Except they are also ever so slightly under clocked.

So, as far as we’re concerned in DCC, the 690 is worse than a 680, and effectively gives you only 2GB of ram for normal use, and in any GPU rendering supporting SLI, all your textures will have to be loaded twice, with consequential synchronicity costs, race condition prevention, bus busyness etc.

Putting two of those together, would still only really give you 2GB of actual usable footprint. So all you would be doing would be wasting 4 times the money instead of double the waste :wink:

These are cards meant for large monitors that take dual link, stereoscopic game rendering, or immersive triple monitor setups, where the redundancy of data would be required anyway.
For anybody else, including gamers running games on a single monitor, it’s a huge waste of money.
A dual 690 would be the apex of pointlessness, on par with a gold plated Ferrari.


Well, that sucks…nice false advertising - I assumed when you do SLI, you get double the greatness…oh well, spend the money on something else I guess, like a nice Canon T4i :slight_smile: