GTX 660 and 1440p monitor.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gib6717

Reputable
Apr 26, 2014
24
0
4,520
I just got a ASUS PB278Q monitor (it's amazing) and I have a GTX 660 2gb video card.

I have a bunch of Steam games and I'd like to be able to play them at a decent frame rate with the graphics at high.. Should I sli the 660 or buy something else? If buy something else, what should I buy?
Here's the rest of my rig
i7-3770k
16gb dominator ram
Z77 Extreme4 mobo
 
Solution
V


I unselected the solution since you hit it by accident. Feel free to select this again or some other answer.

SLI will increase the frame rate compared to a single card with the same settings.
This isn't the same as saying you can use higher settings with SLI because of limitations like video RAM.
SLI can be good in some situations. Probably the best application is people aiming for high frame rates on 120Hz monitors. For what you are doing, it isn't particularly helpful.

On the comment from gridironcj, the GTX 660 is the same generation of technology from Nvidia as every...
Sort by date Sort by votes
G

gib6717

Reputable
Apr 26, 2014
24
0
4,520
Goat Simulator.....


Just kidding.. I got it all from portal to Titanfall (and everything in between)

Is the 780 going to be garbage next year? Should I wait?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

VincentP

Splendid
Oct 18, 2013
4,105
1
26,965
I have a GTX770 with a 2560x1440 monitor similar to yours (Dell U2713HM).
I find that if I turn MSAA (multi-sample anti aliasing) off I can run everything else at the highest settings in most games and get over 50 FPS.
With this resolution, I don't think MSAA makes a big difference. Certainly 2560x1440 with no MSAA looks much better than 1920x1080 with MSAA.
In Far Cry 3 I also had to turn down Post FX (disabled in the settings file).
The GTX 660 is a bit slower but should still be playable with these settings.

MSAA uses a lot of video memory. If you want higher frame rates or to use MSAA, I would suggest a faster card with more video memory rather than SLI. SLI often has issues (although less than Crossfire) and you are still limited to 2GB memory per card.

Which card to buy depends on your budget:
- The AMD Radeon R9 280X will be the cheapest 3GB card with performance similar to the Nvidia GTX 770.
- The Nvidia GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290 are a level of performance above this, but at a higher price.
- The AMD Radeon R9 290X is faster again and the Nvidia GTX 780 Ti is faster than that, but these are very expensive.

Comparitive performance of some of these cards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-9.html

 
Upvote 1 Downvote
17seconds

17seconds

Champion
Jul 27, 2010
10,584
4
51,965
So have you not yet tried your video card on your system with the new monitor? I would expect you could play just about anything after you fiddle with the settings and maybe overclock your card a bit. If you can't get your performance up to where you want it to be, then I wouldn't hesitate to add another cheap GTX 660 in SLI to match the performance of a single, more expensive, high-end card. You're actually in a pretty ideal situation with a nice, relatively cheap SLI upgrade option available.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

gridironcj

Honorable
Dec 23, 2012
215
0
10,710
I would certainly not recommend playing at 2560x1440 with a lower-mid-range card from 2012. The horsepower isn't there and neither is the VRAM. Hell, 2GB wasn't even enough for BF3 on 2560x1440 (I used to have 2 GTX 680 2GBs). Right now, I think the best bang for your buck for 2560x1440 is a pair or trio of GTX 780s 6GB if you want to play games at adequate settings and at 60FPS. You're going to want more than 3GB because 2560x1440 can use up a lot of VRAM depending on the game. Assassin's Creed IV was using around 4GB at maximum. BF4 recommends 3GB (so this means you'll need a little more for higher settings).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
17seconds

17seconds

Champion
Jul 27, 2010
10,584
4
51,965
If you want an idea of your FPS, just run through the gaming benchmarks in this review. At 2560x1600, some games work well, others don't on a single GTX 660. Roughly, you can double the FPS to gauge SLI performance on a 1440p monitor. I still think you should try it first, since it appears that you already have the hardware, to help determine your needs.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_750_Ti_OC/7.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

VincentP

Splendid
Oct 18, 2013
4,105
1
26,965


I unselected the solution since you hit it by accident. Feel free to select this again or some other answer.

SLI will increase the frame rate compared to a single card with the same settings.
This isn't the same as saying you can use higher settings with SLI because of limitations like video RAM.
SLI can be good in some situations. Probably the best application is people aiming for high frame rates on 120Hz monitors. For what you are doing, it isn't particularly helpful.

On the comment from gridironcj, the GTX 660 is the same generation of technology from Nvidia as every other available card except for the GTX 750 Ti (which is slower, but uses a new architecture). A single GTX 780 will be perfect for what you want, a pair or trio of them would be a huge waste of money.

A single GTX 660 will give you playable frame rates at 1440p with some reduced settings. GTX 660s in SLI will allow the same settings with higher frame rates (probably hitting at maximum 60 FPS that can be displayed by your monitor). To use higher settings you will need to look at a faster card with more video RAM instead like the AMD Radeon R9 280X, 290 or 290X or the Nvidia GTX 780 or 780 Ti.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
G

gridironcj

Honorable
Dec 23, 2012
215
0
10,710


You're full of crap. A pair or trio of GTX 780s would not be a waste of money if you're looking to play games at very high settings with anti-aliasing (don't tell me you don't need it at 2560x1440, because there's a difference and I know from experience). Hell, he won't even be able to get an average of 60FPS on Battlefield 4 at Ultra settings with a single GTX 780. Most individuals who play games at 2560x1440 care a lot more than the average gamer about visuals (otherwise, you'd be happy with 1920x1080). If someone is willing to spend over $500 on a monitor, I don't see why it would be a waste to spend $1000-1500 on a pair or trio of graphics cards, especially considering the preferences I mentioned. If he doesn't care about visuals, then he made a rather odd choice for his monitor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

VincentP

Splendid
Oct 18, 2013
4,105
1
26,965


A single GTX 780 would give over 40 FPS with the highest settings in any game at 2560x1440, 60 FPS without MSAA and possibly some other reduced settings. The 2560x1440 resolution makes a much bigger difference to the appearance than these slightly reduced settings.
A 60Hz monitor can only display 60 FPS.
What value would he get from these extra video cards?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

gib6717

Reputable
Apr 26, 2014
24
0
4,520
I'm going to sli the 660 for now. Newegg had a deal where you get a free copy of watchdogs when you buy a 660. Based on what I've read this should be good for a year or so and then I'll upgrade to a single card option.
Thanks for all the input!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom