As the thread's been derailed anyway, I'll try to steer it into something more informative 😀
subhuman@xgtx wrote:I have the 2gb versions of the 680. Based on experience If you are gaming just at 2560x1600 then it's fine for even the most demanding games, but I don't know if it just happens the same with work apps
Games are not currently rendered using physically-unbiased renderer and are basically very low polygon compared to what you see in many of those awesome pre-rendered photorealistic images/animations today. Of course, the more memory we've got, the more polys/detail we can put into our scene. Please take a look at some of the latest demo samples from Octane: http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25051
Especially the car video, even at just 720p you can already see the DIFFERENCE in the quality of lighting compared to current games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=m-0T5EaMGmg
And this is the infancy of the future of gaming graphics... Real-time path tracing demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=FJLy-ci-RyY
(please excuse the low res, imagine the hundreds of current GTX's needed to run a flawless demo at 2560x1600)
the maker's blog, if you're interested:
http://raytracey.blogspot.com/
So this is how I got spoiled and can't help but think "meh" when I see the graphics of today's most demanding games (Doom3 with Sikkmod included) -- in the department of photorealism, that is. Mostly because of the lighting quality that just never feels right. Of course I gave up waiting since knowing the difference between raster/shader tricks and truly unbiased raytracing.
That's why it's also kind of meh to be flaming/demeaning/namecalling over something that'll be obsolete in a decade or two. NO NEED.
If you have it, just enjoy it like subhuman (apparently) does 😁 I mean holy kid! Just watching a case full of beefy graphics boards is already awesome! Who would've imagined it in 1995?
C'mon, Iris and Squall, let's go back in friendly mode -- retro is more fun that way. 😀