Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

(Noob) Recommended graphics card for maxing out 1920x1020

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 18, 2012 11:11:31 PM

So this is the hardware i have already but deciding on the last components to buy:

Corsair 650D
Asus p8z68 v-pro
i5 2500k (keeping at stock clocks unless it bottlenecks whatever card i get)
Hyper 212 evo
Asus Blu-Ray
8gb corsair vengeance 1600mhz
Crucial M4 256gb sata III
Seasonic X-850 watt psu
Video card ???
SSD ???
***edit: running windows 7 home 64 bit not sure if it matters

I'm somewhat of a noob and this will only be my 2nd build. Looking for a gpu that will max most games with full AA @ 1920x1080 on a 46" led 120hz tv (if that matters). Not sure if a single 6970 will cut it or do i need a 7970? Looking to be future proofed for a while and max out Diablo 3 when it comes out as well. Thanks for any input, Jeff.


a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2012 11:48:14 PM

First, looking at your other specs, your system is "top notch" and should be capable of supporting an High-End Graphic card without a part to bottleneck the GPU.

For full AA @ 1920x1080, an 6970 2GB should be more than enough, except if you want to run everything at Ultra (like BF3), you may get less good fps (around ~40).

If you want to crossfire, just to tell, it doesn't work with all games and has a "dark side" too... It is more complex than *plugging in 2 cards and playing games with it*.
It would require at least an 700W PSU if you want to run an Crossfire with a 6970.

Also, the 7970 is alredy out, you can buy it for an retail price of $549.

For an SSD, no, SSDs won't increase your FPS in any circumstances, but will help diminishing loading times. (not by much since with an HDD, I alredy can load BFBC2 at around 10secs.)

Hope it helps! :) 
Score
0
January 19, 2012 12:12:57 AM

bloc97 said:
First, looking at your other specs, your system is "top notch" and should be capable of supporting an High-End Graphic card without a part to bottleneck the GPU.

For full AA @ 1920x1080, an 6970 2GB should be more than enough, except if you want to run everything at Ultra (like BF3), you may get less good fps (around ~40).

If you want to crossfire, just to tell, it doesn't work with all games and has a "dark side" too... It is more complex than *plugging in 2 cards and playing games with it*.
It would require at least an 700W PSU if you want to run an Crossfire with a 6970.

Also, the 7970 is alredy out, you can buy it for an retail price of $549.

For an SSD, no, SSDs won't increase your FPS in any circumstances, but will help diminishing loading times. (not by much since with an HDD, I alredy can load BFBC2 at around 10secs.)

Hope it helps! :) 


I appreciate the thorough response! Seems like people always mention "complications" with crossfire/sli but never explain what. I think i'll go for the 6970 like you suggested. I mostly play FPS games (BF3, rage, metro 2033, etc.) and am not really sensitive to fps (if i'm seeing above 30fps it's probably playable to me) Hoping it maxes out Diablo 3 when it gets released however Blizzard might release it in the 4th quarter of 2015 and my whole system will be obsolete by then lol.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:25:18 AM

Those "Complications" with SLI/CrossFire are almost everytime related to poor implementation in the game or even with the driver itself. Just like if you run an program without multi-thread on a dual-core, it will perform less well than in a single-core CPU.

Also, some games don't scale well with CrossFire and will make both of the GPU work for nothing and will just trash what the 2nd GPU is outputting.

Hope that this little guide will make you understand more about CrossFire/SLI. :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:27:09 AM

Also, an 7970 should perform better than an 6970, but only buy that if you can afford it. Otherwise stick with an 6970.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 12:36:39 AM

theultimateeye said:
I appreciate the thorough response! Seems like people always mention "complications" with crossfire/sli but never explain what. I think i'll go for the 6970 like you suggested. I mostly play FPS games (BF3, rage, metro 2033, etc.) and am not really sensitive to fps (if i'm seeing above 30fps it's probably playable to me) Hoping it maxes out Diablo 3 when it gets released however Blizzard might release it in the 4th quarter of 2015 and my whole system will be obsolete by then lol.

Crossfire is easy #1 install second card #2 connect Crossfire bridge to both cards #3 boot up PC #4 install any pertaing drivers which are most likely installed already then select enable Crossfire in CCC. DONE ! it's that easy
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:40:41 AM

Gordon Freeman said:
Crossfire is easy #1 install second card #2 connect Crossfire bridge to both cards #3 boot up PC #4 install any pertaing drivers which are most likely installed already then select enable Crossfire in CCC. DONE ! it's that easy



Yes it is "that" easy to install, but it may cause problems and some users will waste a lot of time on that. Crossfire is not as fast as an Dual-GPU card and may not even work with some games.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:41:40 AM

if you want to max 1080p with 120hz, you'd need a lot more than you'd want to pay.

I'd say the 6970 is good enough to deliver more than 60 fps average in most games maxed out.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 12:42:36 AM

bloc97 said:
Those "Complications" with SLI/CrossFire are almost everytime related to poor implementation in the game or even with the driver itself. Just like if you run an program without multi-thread on a dual-core, it will perform less well than in a single-core CPU.

Also, some games don't scale well with CrossFire and will make both of the GPU work for nothing and will just trash what the 2nd GPU is outputting.

Hope that this little guide will make you understand more about CrossFire/SLI. :) 

Most all games that anyone would be interested in playing work flawlessly with Crossfire and this was back in 09 with 4890s Crossifire so I am sure they have improved even more since then and 6xxx do have better CF scaling than 48xx did on the hardware level and even software level. Watch out the boogie man Crossfire bugaboo is out to get you LOL stop listening to and regurgitating all the fan bouys BS LOL specially since you have never run crossfire.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 12:45:20 AM

bloc97 said:
Yes it is "that" easy to install, but it may cause problems and some users will waste a lot of time on that. Crossfire is not as fast as an Dual-GPU card and may not even work with some games.

A dual GPU is Crossfire dude they are one and the same and it works the same only thing is dual GPU cards have a built in Crossfire bridge and the dual GPU cards have the same issues as normal Crossfire because the system see them as one and the same.
Score
0
a c 88 U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:48:24 AM

Get a 7970 and have the best and lastest, you can always add another later if need be.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:51:00 AM

Gordon Freeman said:
A dual GPU is Crossfire dude they are one and the same and it works the same only thing is dual GPU cards have a built in Crossfire bridge and the dual GPU cards have the same issues as normal Crossfire because the system see them as one and the same.


No, an dual-gpu solution is in the same PCB, and consume far less power than 2x single cards running in crossfire mode...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 12:53:21 AM

bloc97 said:
Also, an 7970 should perform better than an 6970, but only buy that if you can afford it. Otherwise stick with an 6970.

A GTX 570 would also do the trick. It's equivalent to HD 6970 and allows you to use PhysX. Also it's better at tessellation which may be more important in future games. The only games it matters in right now are Crysis 2 and Batman Arkham City. The 7970 is great in this respect too.

What's your budget so we can be more specific about cards to recommend. A $560 card like the 7970 is of course the best, but what you're looking for can be found in a moderately-overclocked $220 card as well.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:00:15 AM

jessterman21 said:
A GTX 570 would also do the trick. It's equivalent to HD 6970 and allows you to use PhysX. Also it's better at tessellation which may be more important in future games. The only games it matters in right now are Crysis 2 and Batman Arkham City. The 7970 is great in this respect too. What's your budget so we can be more specific about cards to recommend. A $560 card like the 7970 is of course the best, but what you're looking for can be found in a moderately-overclocked $220 card as well.


I have no real budget. HOWEVER in saying that i'm not the kind of person that will just blindly throw money at something. Hence coming on here for advice. I'll shell out money for a 7970 but if there are cards that perform just as well for similar money then i'll go that route. Remember i'm only using 1 large monitor @ 1920x1080. Without trying to start an arguement is the use of tessellation increasing in games? (and for future games/engines) Then i'm wondering if an nvidia card would be better.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:03:01 AM

Right now, AMD cards are better at tesselation, but they lack of CUDA and PhysX support, but it isn't very important since most games doesn't use PhysX. And your CPU can do Software PhysX pretty well since it is somewhat high-end.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:06:12 AM

If you have no budget then the 7970 is worth it if you want it to give you a smoother experience on the 120hz monitor.

but the 6970 will give you basically the same thing just with less fps.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:12:31 AM

esrever said:
If you have no budget then the 7970 is worth it if you want it to give you a smoother experience on the 120hz monitor.

but the 6970 will give you basically the same thing just with less fps.

+1

OP, please don't leave your new CPU at stock clocks. That thing was meant to fly.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:13:20 AM

bloc97 said:
No, an dual-gpu solution is in the same PCB, and consume far less power than 2x single cards running in crossfire mode...

You need to do more research then on how a single PCB Dual GPU card works and they are not all the same.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:16:55 AM

Gordon Freeman said:
You need to do more research then on how a single PCB Dual GPU card works and they are not all the same.


First, yes they comsume far less power, second I know perfectly how an GPU functions, you don't need to tell me...

HD 6970 = 250W
250x2=500W

HD 6990 = 370W

500-370 = 130W less power... -_-
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:19:50 AM

theultimateeye said:
Without trying to start an arguement is the use of tessellation increasing in games? (and for future games/engines) Then i'm wondering if an nvidia card would be better.

Yes, games are making better and more thorough use of DirectX 11, and its flagship feature is tessellation (adding more detail to objects as you get closer). The HD 7970 is the first AMD card with a better tessellator than Nvidia's current GTX cards, and it has brand-new architecture which makes it more future-proof. It also overclocks very well. It'll be worth almost every penny.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:20:40 AM

esrever said:
If you have no budget then the 7970 is worth it if you want it to give you a smoother experience on the 120hz monitor.

but the 6970 will give you basically the same thing just with less fps.


Well if you guys are saying you would notice a clear difference between the two i guess i would as well. I've just saved up for so long to buy a computer i wont have to upgrade for another few years. (Coming from a Phenom 945 HD4870 setup) Kinda excited now i didn't expect to build a system this fast. Oh and i did buy the k version of the cpu to overclock but i'm currently doing a bunch of research on overclocking. I dont wanna jump the gun yet and dive into something i know nothing about.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:21:32 AM

bloc97 said:
First, yes they comsume far less power, second I know perfectly how an GPU functions, you don't need to tell me...

HD 6970 = 250W
250x2=500W

HD 6990 = 370W

500-370 = 130W less power... -_-

Your ideal is somewhat simplified on that and you may want to do some more research on it.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:21:42 AM

the true power consumption isn't like that. It does use more power to crossfire but the difference is smaller.

considering 2 6970s are faster thats pretty reasonable.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:24:41 AM

esrever said:
the true power consumption isn't like that. It does use more power to crossfire but the difference is smaller.
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/HD6990/HD6990-72.jpg
considering 2 6970s are faster thats pretty reasonable.

If I am not mistaken 6990 GPUs are underclocked 6970s to conserve on heat and power and this would account for the slight variance in power draw and performance.
Score
0
a c 92 U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:25:59 AM

Gordon Freeman said:
If I am not mistaken 6990 GPUs are underclocked 6970s to conserve on heat and power and this would account for the slight variance in power draw and performance.
yes thats about it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:28:58 AM

Ok lets not make this thread about 2x Single Cards vs 1x Dual-GPU card please, and help the OP responding to his questions...
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:30:32 AM

bloc97 said:
First, yes they comsume far less power, second I know perfectly how an GPU functions, you don't need to tell me...

HD 6970 = 250W
250x2=500W

HD 6990 = 370W

500-370 = 130W less power... -_-

I to was once drawn into the allure of a Dual GPU on one card solution but the fact is two cards in crossfire are always better and cheaper than one dual GPU solution unless you can get a GTX 460 2 WIN for $300 or less then that is representative of a good deal.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:33:51 AM

Or unless if you only have 1x PCI-E x16 slot? -_-
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:35:25 AM

jessterman21 said:
Yes, games are making better and more thorough use of DirectX 11, and its flagship feature is tessellation (adding more detail to objects as you get closer). The HD 7970 is the first AMD card with a better tessellator than Nvidia's current GTX cards, and it has brand-new architecture which makes it more future-proof. It also overclocks very well. It'll be worth almost every penny.


Very good info i didn't know that. When i was researching it seemed most hd cards didn't have good tessellation compared to the gtx series. YES i'm reading the overclock results on hardocp and i think i've finalized my decision. All the stock benchmarks i've been seeing had me on the fence but overclocking it seems pretty easy even for a noob like myself and the gains seem huge. Thanks jessterman
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:40:13 AM

BTW everyone here has been very helpful and i have wondered about power consumption too. After all i'm the one paying the damn electric bill.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 19, 2012 1:40:20 AM

atm I'm running at your resolution on a 6770 OC'd like a pro. Running 6GB RAM, Anthlon II X3 425 CPU and I max out GTA 4 with basic ENB settings which is crazy. A 7970 in your system would be complete overkill. You'd be sufficient with a single 6870.... and OC it to get a maximum FPS boost. And when you start to worry about future games you could just CF with another 6870. Your system does not need a silly 6970, especially a 7970... it's just complete overkill, unless your looking for 100+ FPS in every game.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:45:43 AM

Anonymous said:
atm I'm running at your resolution on a 6770 OC'd like a pro. Running 6GB RAM, Anthlon II X3 425 CPU and I max out GTA 4 with basic ENB settings which is crazy. A 7970 in your system would be complete overkill. You'd be sufficient with a single 6870.... and OC it to get a maximum FPS boost. And when you start to worry about future games you could just CF with another 6870. Your system does not need a silly 6970, especially a 7970... it's just complete overkill, unless your looking for 100+ FPS in every game.


That was I was saying about a 6950 being more than enough to play games at high with 8xAA.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 1:46:39 AM

theultimateeye said:
BTW everyone here has been very helpful and i have wondered about power consumption too. After all i'm the one paying the damn electric bill.

DX11 will not become very useful until the next gen of consoles come out and to be honest I rather run most games in DX9 and most games still are DX9 only and the best looking game out currently is DX9 and DX 11 just slows most games down.
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:00:56 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
DX11 will not become very useful until the next gen of consoles come out and to be honest I rather run most games in DX9 and most games still are DX9 only and the best looking game out currently is DX9 and DX 11 just slows most games down.

Games coming out in the next few years will make better and better use of DX11, and GPUs will get better and better at running these new features like tessellation. We're seeing that with the HD 7000 series, and we'll see it with the GTX 600 series, too.

DX11 slows games down on current mainstream systems, but OP is building a future-proof semi-high-end system and games on a large 120Hz display which allows him to see framerates up to 120fps. If OP's willing to pay, an HD 7970 will do wonders with this setup.
Share
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 1:32:11 PM

Just to let you guys and the OP know, his "120hz display" isn't a true 120hz monitor. It's a 120hz TV. Unfortunately, no current TV is capable of accepting a120hz input signal. What they do is take a 60hz input and do extra processing, which results in major input lag.

What does this mean? Unlike a 120hz monitor, which can effectively display up to 120 frames, the TV will only effectively display 60 frames. By effectively, I mean that you won't be able to tell the difference between 60 frames and anything above that, whereas with a 120hz monitor, you could actually notice when frames are over 60, it will look smoother.

So what you want to do is set your TV into "game mode" if it has one. This is supposed to turn off all the image processing, reducing the input lag. Another thing that helps is renaming the input you are using(HDMI 2 for example) to"PC". This also reduces input lag.

As for a graphics card, I think that a 7970 would be worth it. It will for sure get you by for a few years if you want to max out games @ 1080p. A 6970/570 would be good too, but it may struggle to run games like BF3 and Crysis2(with DX11 Texture Pack) with all settings maxed out(were talking anti-aliasing, Depth of Field, Tesselation). 6970's and 570's would still run most games on high/ultra for around 2 years, but may struggle with the most demanding games.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 2:13:21 PM

trogdor796 said:
Just to let you guys and the OP know, his "120hz display" isn't a true 120hz monitor. It's a 120hz TV. Unfortunately, no current TV is capable of accepting a120hz input signal. What they do is take a 60hz input and do extra processing, which results in major input lag.

What does this mean? Unlike a 120hz monitor, which can effectively display up to 120 frames, the TV will only effectively display 60 frames. By effectively, I mean that you won't be able to tell the difference between 60 frames and anything above that, whereas with a 120hz monitor, you could actually notice when frames are over 60, it will look smoother.

Ah. Thanks for the info. CURSE YOU INTERPOLATIONNNNN.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 5:15:31 PM

jessterman21 said:
Games coming out in the next few years will make better and better use of DX11, and GPUs will get better and better at running these new features like tessellation. We're seeing that with the HD 7000 series, and we'll see it with the GTX 600 series, too.

DX11 slows games down on current mainstream systems, but OP is building a future-proof semi-high-end system and games on a large 120Hz display which allows him to see framerates up to 120fps. If OP's willing to pay, an HD 7970 will do wonders with this setup.

We need consoles to come onto DX11 than that is when Developers will start to push to limits of DX 11 we have seen nothing yet just because it is new and not very much used but with the next gen of consoles will change all that. DX11 was designed to make games run better and look better not just look better with more eye candy but use hardware more effectively and allow the developers to more easily implement high graphical feature sets. In turn DX 11 was supposed to be more efficient and hence enable higher framerates at the same time enabling more eye candy with a positive impact on performance at the same time however it will be like always the consoles that will hold the industry back with there now 7 years old archaic hardware's.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 5:18:29 PM

trogdor796 said:
Just to let you guys and the OP know, his "120hz display" isn't a true 120hz monitor. It's a 120hz TV. Unfortunately, no current TV is capable of accepting a120hz input signal. What they do is take a 60hz input and do extra processing, which results in major input lag.

What does this mean? Unlike a 120hz monitor, which can effectively display up to 120 frames, the TV will only effectively display 60 frames. By effectively, I mean that you won't be able to tell the difference between 60 frames and anything above that, whereas with a 120hz monitor, you could actually notice when frames are over 60, it will look smoother.

So what you want to do is set your TV into "game mode" if it has one. This is supposed to turn off all the image processing, reducing the input lag. Another thing that helps is renaming the input you are using(HDMI 2 for example) to"PC". This also reduces input lag.

As for a graphics card, I think that a 7970 would be worth it. It will for sure get you by for a few years if you want to max out games @ 1080p. A 6970/570 would be good too, but it may struggle to run games like BF3 and Crysis2(with DX11 Texture Pack) with all settings maxed out(were talking anti-aliasing, Depth of Field, Tesselation). 6970's and 570's would still run most games on high/ultra for around 2 years, but may struggle with the most demanding games.

Why the heck would a TV need 120hrz LOL movies are generally shot in 24fps and TV is 24fps crap quality and the consoles are 30fps with a few exceptions one being MW2 which runs at 60fps even on consoles.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 5:52:48 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
Why the heck would a TV need 120hrz LOL movies are generally shot in 24fps and TV is 24fps crap quality and the consoles are 30fps with a few exceptions one being MW2 which runs at 60fps even on consoles.

TV's with a refresh rate that high are good for smoothing out programming such as sports where there is a lot of action going on and things are moving really fast. In cases like this and during the playback of movies, interpolation and input lag don't matter and are OKAY because you are not inputting anything, you are simply watching the tv signal that your tv is receiving.

BTW, 24fps for movies and TV programs does not mean "crap quality". You are just saying that because you don't want to play a game at 24fps, because that would be crap quality. 24 frames isn't good enough for a game because it needs to play smooth enough for you to react, but it doesn't matter with movies or television. Those kind of programs look fine at 24 frames. Every movie you see in a theater is 24 frames, but it still looks good.

As for consoles, yes, most of the games run at 30 frames, which is fine, and playable for most people. Before I started gaming on PC I though it was perfect! But now that I have seen 60 frames on computer I can tell the difference, but I can and still do play console games at 30 frames.

The only reason MW2 can run at 60 is because the game is run on an engine that was made and used before the consoles even released. It's old, and not demanding.

Let's try to stop derailing the thread now, and focus on helping the OP.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 7:14:11 PM

trogdor796 said:
TV's with a refresh rate that high are good for smoothing out programming such as sports where there is a lot of action going on and things are moving really fast. In cases like this and during the playback of movies, interpolation and input lag don't matter and are OKAY because you are not inputting anything, you are simply watching the tv signal that your tv is receiving.

BTW, 24fps for movies and TV programs does not mean "crap quality". You are just saying that because you don't want to play a game at 24fps, because that would be crap quality. 24 frames isn't good enough for a game because it needs to play smooth enough for you to react, but it doesn't matter with movies or television. Those kind of programs look fine at 24 frames. Every movie you see in a theater is 24 frames, but it still looks good.

As for consoles, yes, most of the games run at 30 frames, which is fine, and playable for most people. Before I started gaming on PC I though it was perfect! But now that I have seen 60 frames on computer I can tell the difference, but I can and still do play console games at 30 frames.

The only reason MW2 can run at 60 is because the game is run on an engine that was made and used before the consoles even released. It's old, and not demanding.

Let's try to stop derailing the thread now, and focus on helping the OP.

Nope I said TV is crap Quality however cinema @ 1080P 24hz is and can be very beautiful like Batman The Dark Knight etc. The cameras that are used to shoot TV programing is running @ 24hz and I think some are a bit more or less but that never changes if you just change you monitor to 120hz the programing is still running at 24fps not 120fps. Same goes for a game if the game can only run at 24fps it can not be up converted by the TV/Monitor to 120fps just because you have a 120hz TV/Monitor you need the hardware to run 120fps in the games case being a GPU in TVs case it is the Video camera and it is a mighty mighty expensive one that is needed to shoot @ 120hz actually they my not be in existence.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2012 7:14:35 PM

jessterman21 said:
Ah. Thanks for the info. CURSE YOU INTERPOLATIONNNNN.


Actually it isn't really Interpolation, it is more of Telecine 3:2 pulldown...
Score
0
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 12:24:33 AM

Once again, stop going off topic. Even posting your last thoughts then saying "ok, let's not derail this thread now..." because your obviously going to get a reply to it. And once again, the OP does NOT need a damn 7970 for his setup... Even getting a 6950 now and CF'ing it later would guarantee mostly maxed setting games for years to come. I know some people are drooling over the new 7000 series but there's no need to convince somebody to waste twice as much on something they don't need. A single 6870 right now would max just about every game out there with his setup. There, I just saved the OP almost $400. There isn't really a discussion for this, OP even mentioned he does not care about anything above 30FPS (nor should most unless your playing a game that needs it, or your just completely O.C.D. and anal about FPS =P)

As a final conclusion to this heavily spammed topic, you shouldn't have to drop more than $200 now to get maxed in-game settings for just about every single game. I, myself, like to do a tad bit over the top, so I'd say buy a 6950 2GB now, and when the time comes, and you feel that your computer needs a little more 'oompf', grab a second 6950 2GB and CF your system. (6950's are a little hard to come by if your looking for a reference design though)
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2012 12:35:26 AM

Anonymous said:
Once again, stop going off topic. Even posting your last thoughts then saying "ok, let's not derail this thread now..." because your obviously going to get a reply to it. And once again, the OP does NOT need a damn 7970 for his setup... Even getting a 6950 now and CF'ing it later would guarantee mostly maxed setting games for years to come. I know some people are drooling over the new 7000 series but there's no need to convince somebody to waste twice as much on something they don't need. A single 6870 right now would max just about every game out there with his setup. There, I just saved the OP almost $400. There isn't really a discussion for this, OP even mentioned he does not care about anything above 30FPS (nor should most unless your playing a game that needs it, or your just completely O.C.D. and anal about FPS =P)

As a final conclusion to this heavily spammed topic, you shouldn't have to drop more than $200 now to get maxed in-game settings for just about every single game. I, myself, like to do a tad bit over the top, so I'd say buy a 6950 2GB now, and when the time comes, and you feel that your computer needs a little more 'oompf', grab a second 6950 2GB and CF your system. (6950's are a little hard to come by if your looking for a reference design though)


Ok, this is the third time I say this. I said a little before that an "6950 WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH" AND HE should be able to play everything ULTRA at 8x AA (only one screen, not talking about eyefinity here).
Score
0
January 20, 2012 10:08:43 PM

trogdor796 said:
Just to let you guys and the OP know, his "120hz display" isn't a true 120hz monitor. It's a 120hz TV. Unfortunately, no current TV is capable of accepting a120hz input signal. What they do is take a 60hz input and do extra processing, which results in major input lag.

What does this mean? Unlike a 120hz monitor, which can effectively display up to 120 frames, the TV will only effectively display 60 frames. By effectively, I mean that you won't be able to tell the difference between 60 frames and anything above that, whereas with a 120hz monitor, you could actually notice when frames are over 60, it will look smoother.

So what you want to do is set your TV into "game mode" if it has one. This is supposed to turn off all the image processing, reducing the input lag. Another thing that helps is renaming the input you are using(HDMI 2 for example) to"PC". This also reduces input lag.

As for a graphics card, I think that a 7970 would be worth it. It will for sure get you by for a few years if you want to max out games @ 1080p. A 6970/570 would be good too, but it may struggle to run games like BF3 and Crysis2(with DX11 Texture Pack) with all settings maxed out(were talking anti-aliasing, Depth of Field, Tesselation). 6970's and 570's would still run most games on high/ultra for around 2 years, but may struggle with the most demanding games.


Sorry haven't had time to get on until today. Great info in this post. I've heard the tv's basically "filling" in half of the images because it can't replicate the last image shown. Makes me wonder about a large display monitor but they seem uber expensive. I'll probably get flamed for this but i have decided on a 7970. Looking at all the benchmarks at 1920x1080 it seems that this card is getting around 60-80 fps avg. on the newest games with AA cranked all the way up. That seems good for now but i'm not sure what games in the future will look like or what display features they'll require. Or what future hdtv's/monitors will look like. Hopefully it'll be good for a couple years. If games get more cpu intensive then i'll upgrade to an ivy bridge cpu or whatever the next great thing is. Plus there's always the option of another 7970. Again, thanks for all the help everyone. I posted this up on a few different forums and you folks were the only ones to help my noob ass out AND provide me with additional information i didn't know about!
Score
0
January 20, 2012 11:10:29 PM

***Update - After doing some research it seems the HDMI drivers for the 7970 are horrible. This is coming from many verified owners commenting on Newegg. Issues with the sound, blank/black screens, blurry screens. Since my hdtv doesn't have a DVI connection perhaps i'll wait until AMD releases better drivers for this card.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 21, 2012 3:01:45 AM

theultimateeye said:
***Update - After doing some research it seems the HDMI drivers for the 7970 are horrible. This is coming from many verified owners commenting on Newegg. Issues with the sound, blank/black screens, blurry screens. Since my hdtv doesn't have a DVI connection perhaps i'll wait until AMD releases better drivers for this card.

You shouldn't be too worried, the 7000 series is just hatching, it's going to take a couple weeks for it to get situated. But I honestly do not know why your even thinking about a 7970 for 1920x1080 =\ Please make sure you've read all of the posts above (or just the non-spam ones that are useless to you). Anyways, I wish you luck with your nice large screen and GPU, hope I've helped.
Score
0
January 28, 2012 6:45:33 PM

Anonymous said:
You shouldn't be too worried, the 7000 series is just hatching, it's going to take a couple weeks for it to get situated. But I honestly do not know why your even thinking about a 7970 for 1920x1080 =\ Please make sure you've read all of the posts above (or just the non-spam ones that are useless to you). Anyways, I wish you luck with your nice large screen and GPU, hope I've helped.


You have definitely helped. The Sapphire 7970 came yesterday and i am very happy with this card. However i was expecting a little more performance in Battlefield 3. I'm only getting an average of around 43 fps on ultra settings at 1920x1080. It's even lower in Arkham City. I just can't understand how someone can pay over 500 bucks for a graphics card and it doesn't dominate games at 1080p (which is pretty damn standard nowadays). How would i find out how much cpu usage these games are using? My 2500k is still at stock speeds as is the graphics card. Not sure if this is holding me back or not.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2012 6:58:11 PM

Did you turn on MSAA? If so, that is why. Turn that off, and you should see significant fps gains. At 1080p, you shouldn't really need or notice MSAA anyways, FXAA should be just fine IMO.
Score
0
January 28, 2012 8:11:43 PM

Yes MSAA was on. When i get home i'll try turning it off and see what i gain in fps.
Score
0
!