I think this is the question everyone wants to know the answer to.
 
Ideally, I'd like to see four set-ups tested on 5760x1080:
 
680 2GB SLI vs 680 2GB Tri-SLI vs 680 4GB SLI vs 680 4GB Tri-SLI
 
Seeing those four setups against each other would tell us all we need to know about memory capacity vs gpu horsepower at high resolutions. Now, someone just needs to order 6 GTX 680's and start benching!! Not me though 

Memory frequency differs from 2GB to 4GB.  The 2gb hands down performs better on that department. The 4GB is focus mainly to Nvidia Surround owners who like to crank the AA settings on high.
And only these individuals know how valuable VRam is.

http://www.guru3d.com/new...-4gb-jetstream-review/
 
http://forums.extremeover...fa3efd50c&t=362953

http://www.tweaktown.com/...card_review/index.html

Kepler got neutered due to the competition, plain and simple.
This is why I am waiting for the monster GPU.

Even if there was no measurable difference with today's games, you really should consider the 4GB model for future games.  It isn't like they won't use more Vram, always has in the past.  But it depends on how long you intend to keep the graphics card.  Some folks will just upgrade to every new option that comes along, I see that as a hassle and would rather future-proof myself.  No it isn't impossible or a myth, one must simply get more than you need now for a future use.  For example: A 4GB GTX680 now for a future game that needs more than 2GB Vram would be future-proofing yourself.
 
You never know if you get into multi-display later, really look at your upgrade tendencies and make a judgment based on more than just what you do right now.  Plan ahead.

flyingduck88

atfrico

Memory frequency differs from 2GB to 4GB.  The 2gb hands down performs better on that department. The 4GB is focus mainly to Nvidia Surround owners who like to crank the AA settings on high.
And only these individuals know how valuable VRam is.

What about a single 30" at 2560/1600?? I'm on the fence about this myself, and when I get home, I'll have no GPU!! I sold them all.
If you put two or even three 2gb 680's in SLI how do they utilize the vRAM??
With a single 580 classy ultra in BF3 I seen my vRAM usage go as high as 2.2gb!
I do like to crank up all the eye candy too.

Get it!  You are one of the few that might (key word) need it for the size and resolution of that monitor

I can only tell you that when I had 2 580's 4GB (and 3) on 5760x1080 they useded more VRAM according to precision then my 2 680's by a large margin.  I don't know if it is drivers, or the hardware, but thats my observation.

r0b0tc0rpse
So what I have read is that since they only gave these gpu's a 256 bit memory bus the cards with 4gb don't bench mark any better than the 2 gb cards, I was wondering if this holds true in resolutions above 1920x1200.

You can't judge the interface width independently, look at the memory bandwidth.  If instead there was a 512-bit interface with half the effective memory frequency, then the bandwidth is the same; if they have the same GPU core specs, then both graphics cards will perform identically.  That the interface is 256-bit on GTX680 doesn't matter because the high memory frequency compensates. 
 
If you want to talk about the latency, then sure, a 4GB buffer would take twice as long to refresh as 2GB at whatever bandwidth.  But at 240GB/s, that refresh rate is equal or less than your display's refresh rate if you filled the 4GB buffer completely.  Granted if you want 4GB buffer maintained at 120Hz, then that is 480GB/s and you'd need 15GHz Vram at 256-bit-- or 512-bit at 7.5GHz, which is more practical in terms of capability.
 
The only issue is whether a particular game at a particular detail level and resolution can actually reach or breach 2GB or more at a time.  It seems so far that of the available or popular high resolution displays with multi-monitors, 2GB is sufficient most often.  But eventually higher res single displays will become common, and suddenly a 4GB card may become the rule as opposed to the exception.
 
In other words, I will always advocate considering future uses and thus recommend the higher Vram model regardless of how games of today do in Vram requirements.  Unless you never intend to get new games from this point on, you should plan ahead.

I just setup my new 5760x1080 setup using 670 FTW SLI...
 
I think I am going to have a pretty interesting post coming in the next 24-48 hours about what I am seeing and how I feel about the current 670/680 GPU's for surround gaming.
 
I will say that shazam above hit the nail on the head though if that gives you a clue... VRAM isn't the issue even at this resolution because these cards just can't push out the FPS even with the HQ-AA etc dialed back.
 
If I can't push out 60FPS or better while only using 1600MB of VRAM what good will a 4GB card do me?  I am going to leave it at that, I don't want to hijack this thread.  I will gather some data over the next few days that I think will make for some interesting conversation.

lehpron your input will be most valuable on this subject, and I completely agree that people should invest for long term.  While I have a great deal of respect for you having read your posts on this forum for many years now, I think you are missing a key point to this 2GB vs 4GB debate.
 
What I am seeing for Surround gaming on my setup of 5760x1080 is that my 670 FTW's are unable to push 60+ FPS on currently generation games at the highest settings.  My example of BF3 I think perfectly exemplifies my concerns with future games on the current 670/680 GPU's.  I have to disable MSAA and Ambient Occlusion altogether and I am still not able to keep 60FPS at all times.  I am seeing 99% load on both GPU's even with MSAA and AO completely disabled... they are giving all they've got.
 
For a moment let's take the VRAM issue out of the scenario...
 
If I do not have enough GPU horsepower to drive a game like BF3 or Crysis 2 at 60+ FPS then what will happen when future games are released that are even more demanding?  I completely agree future games will begin to saturate the 2GB of VRAM, we've seen it happening since the release of the 580 3GB so there's no need to debate that anymore.
 
However if I have to turn down the eye candy to maintain 60FPS on current generation games, I would imagine future more demanding games to be released will just decrease my FPS even more?
 
A lot of people have been saying for some time now that the only people who will really benefit from 4GB cards would be the Surround gaming users.  From what I am seeing, the 4GB may not even come into play because even my 670 FTW SLI configuration cannot pump out enough FPS in BF3 or Crysis 2.
 
Maybe I am completely off base, and if so I'll gladly accept that but I am just going off what I am seeing with my setup.  I am also making the assumption that other gamers consider 60fps gaming a must, I personally value smooth frames over visual quality.
 
You can at least see where I am coming from though right?  If I load up Crysis 2 on Ultra DX11 High Resolution Textures I don't really care if it will benefit from 4GB of VRAM because I'll be playing at 30-40fps.  I have to drop down to the Extreme settings to maintain 60FPS and at that point I won't even exceed 2GB of VRAM.  
 
As future games are released that are even more demanding on my GPU's I am not going to be able to max those games out either, and more than likely I will have to turn the settings down even more to maintain 60FPS.
 
That's all I am getting at, not saying anybody is wrong either way or that a 4GB card is not a good investment but if I am going to throw down 50% more cash for a 680 FTW 4GB card versus a 670 FTW 2GB card I would hope I am actually going to be able to take advantage of that extra VRAM if not today but down the road.  
 
So far from my experience on my own setup I just don't see that happening, and that's all I'm asking people to consider. 
 
Let me add that I am not saying "this is the way it is" or anything like that, I am just spitballing my findings with my peers... and I am tailoring my point of  view towards the Surround gaming crowd of course.  I don't think this logic would apply so well to someone gaming at only 1920x1080, and those users may well indeed benefit from a 4GB GPU with futures games.  

ikeyes, I haven't missed a point.  I assume since both GTX670 and GTX680 can be put in 4-way SLI, it is an easier solution to maintain the value of one's purchases by just getting more cards over time.  In this thread, EVGA member flamethrower purchased three EVGA non-ref 2GB GTX285 way back and is looking to upgrade now.  The combination still outperforms a single GTX580, and comes very close to a single GTX680 in certain games out now at higher typical resolutions than available when GTX285 was available.  The purchase was a good call, IMO, and I hope multiple 4GB cards are on the menu for the next few years.
 

ikeyes
However if I have to turn down the eye candy to maintain 60FPS on current generation games, I would imagine future more demanding games to be released will just decrease my FPS even more?

So get a third or fourth GTX670 FTW by then.  It is certainly cheaper than having to sell your pair to get a new better equivalent.  
 

ikeyes
A lot of people have been saying for some time now that the only people who will really benefit from 4GB cards would be the Surround gaming users.

Won't always be the case.  Begining next year, first 2560x1600 will be overtaken by 3840x2160, equivalent to two 2560x1600 displays or four 1920x1080 displays; eventually cheaper high-res displays will come.  High Vram isn't about multi-monitor anymore, it is about the new high-res standards coming over the next few years.  Anyone happy with two graphics cards must get four to maintain their preferences with those single-monitors, better if they had higher Vram to start. 
 
Yes, anyone could also upgrade to a new pair of Kepler 2.0 (GK112) or Maxwell (GM10x), sure.  
 
But my entire point isn't talking about present day needs at all.

I will agree with you on the long term purchase concept, but I'm not sure I can agree that surround gaming is any different than a single monitor of equal or greater resolution like the upcoming "4K" displays.
 
You are assuming that not only will someone purchase a display like that, which is likely to be in the $2,000+ range... but that they are going to throw down another several thousand dollars on Tri/Quad-SLI using 670 or 680 4GB GPU's just so they can drive it?
 
Most users on this forum like ourselves make up maybe 1% of the world gamer's that invest in a setup like what I am using today in my signature?  And I don't even consider my system high end!  LOL
 
I just upgraded to this 2D Surround setup, ASUS VH236H 23" 1080p 2ms displays equipped with DVI / HDMI inputs and my desktop monitor is now 66" wide!  It's flipping incredible IMHO. Cost?  $449- shipped to my door.  Prior to this I have been running a single 1920x1200 Dell 2405FPW that I bought back in early 2006 for almost $900.
 
Believe me I have been debating on the cost of some 4GB GPU's in a Tri-SLI configuration which I think would be more ideal long term but the cost is just ridiculous.  If I already represent the 1% enthusiast market, and I think that kind of investment is ludicrous how many people are really going to invest that kind of cash.
 
670 FTW SLI - $840
2D Surround - $450
= $1,290
Or
670 4GB Tri-SLI - $1,455
2D Surround - $450
= $1,905
Or
670 4GB Quad-SLI - $1,940
2D Surround - $450
= $2,390
 
Also consider very few 1155 users can even run Tri/Quad SLI unless they throw down on the most high end motherboards, and especially at Quad-SLI we'll need a higher end PSU, raising the cost of their build even more
 
Looking at the cost of 30" 2560x1600 displays over the years since they were debuted, they are still on average over $1,000 and are used by the very small minority.  There is no way you will even be able to buy a 4K display for even close to that in the first few years I would guess.  
 
This is where I still stand, that current generation 4GB cards will never be fully utilized because they just cannot deliver the level of performance we need for high resolution gaming unless someone does like you are suggesting and invests in at least Tri- if not Quad-SLI.
 
By far the 99.5% of us will never build a system like that, so while you may be correct I am looking at it from a more practical standpoint.  I don't think either of our points of view are right or wrong, I just think you are focusing on a much smaller group of users and I am considering the needs of the majority.
 
For now, 5760x1080 is still considered to be high resolution gaming in my book... and until I can buy 4K displays for $150 there is no comparison.
 
Yes, anyone could also upgrade to a new pair of Kepler 2.0 (GK112) or Maxwell (GM10x), sure.   
 
^ I think this statement is a lot more appropriate for the majority of people than planning a build today for technology that won't make it's way into most peoples home for many years to come.  I am leaning this way myself, in that I will likely keep my 670 FTW SLI setup and upgrade possibly when Kepler 2.0 or more likely Maxwell debut.
 
I agree with your logic, and you are correct in everything you stated.  I just personally don't like to rationalize what some very few individuals might do versus what 99% of people would do.
 
I am certain of one thing however in that we can agree to disagree. 

At the time the GTX 680 was released it could better any single GPU card by its competitor. If you are looking to push a resolution past 1920 x 1080 it makes complete sense to go for a 4GB video card. This is where vram becomes important. Right now the majority of people seem to be happy with HD based resolutions and the majority of people have a 24 inch monitor or less.

Futureproofing with GK104 is not worth it. This is a stop-gap GPU nvidia pushed to the market as high-end due to competition when, in truth, it's only mid-range. When new games and/or high res screen arrive to the market that would need 4gb VRAM, GK104-based videocards will perform much worse then whatever will be out on the market by that time. Investing in tech is moronic by definition due to its high rate of depreciation. Yes, you can buy 3-4 4gb 670s/680s now to be able to play future games at super high res but it's gonna cost you a bundle and they do not offer much added value compared to 2gb now and neither will they perform well against what next gen or two of GPUs will be able to do for LESS money.
 
Once again - GK104 is only a stop-gap measure. It shows great promise of GK110 and whatever else might come next but it is not a viable long-term investment product like 8800gtx or radeon 9700 of the day were due to performance leap they offered.

Vlada011

I am for 3/4GB if one card is PC.
You will need 4GB Video memory more than over 8GB RAM for gaming. 

Video ram does not add up with multiple cards. If you have three 4GB cards, you're video ram limit will be 4GB.