Are 2x HD 7970's needed? And are they worth it?

Rhys Harvey · Mar 20, 2013

At the moment i am currently buying parts for a my new PC. I want to buy 1 7970 for now and then after i have finished building my PC i want to buy another. I want to play games on 3 2560x1440 monitors, are the 7970's needed and are they good in Crossfire? Here is the 7970 i will be buying and also the monitor
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/dell-u2713hm?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.waeplus.co.uk/item/155743/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-DOUBLE-DISSIPATION-ED?ref=gooshop

Thanks for all and any answers.

Maxx_Power · Mar 20, 2013

You need to take a look at the games you intend to triple monitor and whether or not they scale well on CrossFire.

Since you will buy 1x7970 first anyway, make it a Ghz edition, try it to see if it games nicely on whatever game you play first, then decide from there. If the performance is less than half what you would like with 1 card, then don't count on 2 cards being able to cut it, since scaling multiplication factor is always less than total number of cards (twice the cards doesn't equal to exactly twice the performance).

Just as well, in a CrossFire (or SLI) configuration, the cards are typically spaced rather tightly (so there is barely any room for the card's fans to breathe), you might want to consider the reference cooler for multi-GPU operation. Any open fan coolers like that XFX will likely heat up quite a lot when paired with another GPU directly underneath.

larkspur · Mar 20, 2013

Wow. That is going to be a very, very demanding resolution. You're talking over 11 million pixels. 3 x 1080p screens is only 6.2 million pixels. I'm not sure I'd setup that massive of a display arrangement given current GPU hardware - I'd wait at least for next-gen hardware or get totally extreme, spend a fortune for 3 x Nvidia Titans. Read the following page paying attention to the fourth bolded conclusion: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-gk110-review,3438-7.html

If you are going the 7970 route, then I wouldn't expect good performance out of anything less than 3 x 7970 6gb ghz edition cards in Crossfire. Unfortunately with one or two cards you will be playing only on your center screen - the performance just isn't enough for that massive resolution.

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

larkspur :

Not sure where you are getting your info from but 2 7970's in crossfire should work fine with those monitors. However like it's already been said, for games that don't support crossfire well it will struggle and for a game like crysis 3 it very well would go over the 3gb threshold. At that resolution though you won't really need any kind of AA, and you can turn down a couple settings if needed. I would try 2 7970's to see how it performs, if it doesn't do well then just return it and use a single monitor until the next gen cards come it.

It's not worth the price you would pay for titans or 6gb model 7970. Also I would agree that going with a reference design is a good idea. You can easily overclock or get close to the ghz edition with simply sliding the over to the frequency using any overclock utility. Saving you at least $50 per card.

spentshells · Mar 20, 2013

I normally never would suggest trifire but at that resolution it may be needed.

2 titans could do it I think but it's a waste of money,

If it were me and I had the scratch laying around I would wait for the recently announced mini titan and buy two providing it was around 599-699.

BUT ..... someone I work with bought a titan 2 weeks ago, it plays everything smooth as butter without a tiny hickup on 2 1920x1080P screens. crysis 3 plays topped on dual screens... so he says but I believe it due to the massive bags under his eyes.

nforce4max · Mar 20, 2013

You can try but don't expect everything to be on high settings and such a setup is very memory dependent. A single 7970 can manage a lot of older and console games at that ress but very little in the past two or three years will play decently so two 7970 or more is usually required. Even Titan starts to shutter once in a while even in sli with settings that most people use on a single 1080p screen.

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

How is vram a total non issue? A single 1440p and crysis 3 with very high settings gets to 2.5.2.8 vram usage. You will see a big decrease in performance after this. And it is possible to run 3 x of this monitors but details will have to be turned down with no aa

Personally I wouldn't go over a single 27' monitor at 2560x1600...multi monitor setups are a headache (I ran one before) I really didn't think it was worth it. If you will likely be sittings so close a single 1440p monitor will cover most of your peripheral vision. But if you already have the displays might as well try

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

You're throwing out a lot of assumptions. Would you like to provide a benchmark to prove any of them>

larkspur · Mar 20, 2013

cdrkeen :

Two 7970s games nicely enough for 3 x 1080 but not 3 x 1440. Are we talking about 3 or 4 year-old games? By 'fine', do you mean low settings and 30fps? There's simply a massive difference in pixels. AA is less necessary at higher res but its still noticeable. And can it play Crysis 3? ; )

Really, the 'cheap' solution is 3 x 7970 with the understanding that Crossfire scaling varies and isn't perfect and is loud and hot, etc, etc. Versus two or three(hell why not!) Titans which is preferable but cost a fortune and are easily viewed as a waste of money (particularly among wives).

spentshells · Mar 20, 2013

larkspur :

cdrkeen :

Two 7970s games nicely enough for 3 x 1080 but not 3 x 1440. Are we talking about 3 or 4 year-old games? By 'fine', do you mean low settings and 30fps? There's simply a massive difference in pixels. AA is less necessary at higher res but its still noticeable. And can it play Crysis 3? ; )

Really, the 'cheap' solution is 3 x 7970 with the understanding that Crossfire scaling varies and isn't perfect and is loud and hot, etc, etc. Versus two or three(hell why not!) Titans which is preferable but cost a fortune and are easily viewed as a waste of money (particularly among wives).

HARHARHAR wife FTW

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

larkspur :

Feel like providing a benchmark or personal experience to back up anything you said? I never said Crysis 3 would run well I did say it would run and I wasn't specifically talking about that game. It's ridiculously demanding compared to most games out.

spentshells · Mar 20, 2013

cdrkeen :

larkspur :

Feel like providing a benchmark or personal experience to back up anything you said? I never said Crysis 3 would run well I did say it would run and I wasn't specifically talking about that game. It's ridiculously demanding compared to most games out.

No benchmarks needed only price tags which you can find yourself.

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

Ok I will rest my case then. You will probably need a 6GB model but even a single 6GB 7970 with a 7680 x 1440 p resolution runs bf3 on high and it's playable with 30 fps. Last time I checked the game isn't 4 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DH7aJy8-0

This is also a bit outdated the newer amd drivers substantially increase bf3 performance. And Vram DEFINITELY matters

enough said

spentshells · Mar 20, 2013

cdrkeen :

nothing about this shows vram is a factor,other forums (with more money than toms frequenters) seem to indicate 3GB cards have plenty of vram if you stay under 4xaa

the card just doesn't have the jam to cough out more frames it is not related to frame buffer.

Wow I wish this was my problem

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

spentshells :

If you wish to help the Op than please post up a benchmark. Otherwise please get your uneducated and rather rude comments out of this thread.

I guess you chose not to watch the video. 1 7970 runs a relatively new and demanding game bf3 at 7680 by 1440 with playable fps! I garentee you it uses more than 3gb ram if you decided to get 2 of these cards and play at very high settings. It is VERY helpful having the extra 3gb. I've read numerous benchmarks and once a game surpasses the maximum memory bandwidth it will cripple a game

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

Again please get your uneducated crap out of this thread. The video I just showed runs BF3 7680 x 1440 on at least high settings he may of even had it on very high. THIS IS ONE CARD!!! so please take your crap elsewhere or show proof of your comments.

higher resolutions exponentially use more memory are you stupid?
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/powercolor_hd7970_overclocking_eyefinity_review/18

with only 1080 p eyefinity the usage is at 2.4 GB. You add the 1440p resolution which uses about twice the pixels and you are right near or likely over the max! This would cripple the performance making it unplayable plus if any newer game comes out it will likely use even more

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

Not very demanding? hahaha ok so I guess you think metro 2033 isn't demanding that's right near crysis 3 demanding. And Metro uses the same amount of vram as BF3. Please show some real info here instead of trolling

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

If you talk to anyone who knows something about graphics cards and performance relating to memory bandwidth they would agree with me. Just do a simple google search.

And I know from personal experience, it's the same with every game. I had a 4850 1GB crossfire setup awhile ago. When playing bad company 2 the memory usage would go over with my eyefinity setup on the highest settings it would dip into single digits I had 1680 x 1050 x3 setup. When I downed the image quality or the resolution it went back up to 40-50 fps. So saying memory doesn't matter is just your uneducated opinion

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

um those are aging graphics cards, want to show some updated ones? They are also using the outdated and really bad old amd drivers. The new ones upped the performance in that game by around 35 percent.

My point is that 1440p resolution eyefinity games are playable with a 7970 crossfire setup and even a single card.

I've already proven my point with more than enough evidence. So you can keep trolling and ranting I'm done. I'm sure the Op has his answers now.

spentshells · Mar 20, 2013

cdrkeen :

You said and I quote "game surpasses the maximum memory bandwidth it will cripple a game"
Memory bandwidth and capacity are not the same thing. I find it odd you are not aware of this.

Because a texture/bumpmap is being used more often in a larger frame does not mean does not mean it will require more memory for the texture/bump map it simply means the gpu needs to apply the texture more times on a larger area which as you mentioned requires more memory bandwidth and as I mentioned GPU power. Yes the frame in total requires more memory as it is bigger just as a larger picture requires more space. Think of taking a picture of your house and using it as a background on your pc. If you choose to use the tiled mode trust me your computer is not displaying 40 copies of the same picture but rather 1 photo placed in many locations But ultimately it only has one scource file not 40. What you are missing is the source texture files are not getting larger. The same textures and bumpmaps are loaded from the source files in the game and rendered I get the impression you are not aware of this. 1 texture is applied across the screen not many of the same textures loaded into the RAM. What this requires is GPU power and memory bandwith to put the same thing in more spaces.

I actually took 3D rendering in college for a couple of years, so the whole uneducated things seems to be a slight but im not exactly saddened by it. I would suggest you read a bit more on your own into how things actually work.

Hey in saying this I am not saying 2GB will be enough but more than 3GB without using as I mentioned more 4xaa is very unlikely.

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

spentshells :

cdrkeen :

You said and I quote "game surpasses the maximum memory bandwidth it will cripple a game"
Memory bandwidth and capacity are not the same thing. I find it odd you are not aware of this.

Because a texture/bumpmap is being used more often in a larger frame does not mean does not mean it will require more memory for the texture/bump map it simply means the gpu needs to apply the texture more times on a larger area which as you mentioned requires more memory bandwidth and as I mentioned GPU power. Yes the frame in total requires more memory as it is bigger just as a larger picture requires more space. Think of taking a picture of your house and using it as a background on your pc. If you choose to use the tiled mode trust me your computer is not displaying 40 copies of the same picture but rather 1 photo placed in many locations But ultimately it only has one scource file not 40. What you are missing is the source texture files are not getting larger. The same textures and bumpmaps are loaded from the source files in the game and rendered I get the impression you are not aware of this. 1 texture is applied across the screen not many of the same textures loaded into the RAM. What this requires is GPU power and memory bandwith to put the same thing in more spaces.

I actually took 3D rendering in college for a couple of years, so the whole uneducated things seems to be a slight but im not exactly saddened by it. I would suggest you read a bit more on your own into how things actually work.

Hey in saying this I am not saying 2GB will be enough but more than 3GB without using as I mentioned more 4xaa is very unlikely.

troll on you know that's not what I mean by memory capacity not bandwidth I've backup up all my statements with benchmarks and facts, maybe you should re read my posts. And use some sources to back up your claims.

I said earlier:
"higher resolutions exponentially use more memory.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/powercolor_hd7970_overclocking_eyefinity_review/18"

And as you can see even on a 1080p crossfire setup it uses 2.4 gigs. 1440p will liekly go well over the 3GB barrier.

I gave the Op useful information and your only object is to try to prove me wrong with your uneducated opinion.

Move along

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

Yeah great advice, lets spend 2 or 3 grand for no reason! You miss the complete point of all my posts. Try re reading and come back to comment. Not going to bother explaining again. The maximal most people would ever want to spend right now would be for 2x 7970 6GB and that would most likely get you playable settings near max on most of the newer games. The visuals won't be that much different from high to ultra. Spending 3x the amount for a little bit bitter visuals makes no sense. Wait for the next generation

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

Are you kidding me? bahaha that's for a single monitor and it uses 2.8 gigs!! If you act like a troll, and you put out uneducated crap. Then yes I will call you that because it's not helping the OP.

Thanks for proving my point!

Move along

cdrkeen · Mar 20, 2013

BigMack70 :

So you are right about those games. However Crysis 3 will be over that amount already as you showed a benchmark with a single monitor can use up to 2.8 GB. So if any more demanding games come out he would run into trouble. For such a big investment It wouldn't be wise unless he likes to upgrade his video cards every year. And my only reason I started posting in here was to help the Op. I think it pretty much proves that for most games 2 7970's should run them nicely. Or you can spend 3 times the amount for Titans.

shaunnson4 · Mar 20, 2013

I can't figure this one out....

Are 2x HD 7970's needed? And are they worth it?

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Judicious

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Judicious

Distinguished

Judicious

Distinguished

Judicious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Judicious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Share this page