Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Gaming at 2560x1440

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 26, 2012 11:13:37 PM

Hey guys,

I'm thinking of upgrading my monitor from a 21.5" 1920x1080 one to a 27" or 30" 2560x1440 one. Obviously, that higher resolution will require more horsepower in the GPU department to get the performance I want, but how much more?

Currently I have an i5-2500K OC'd to 4.4 GHz, and a Radeon HD 6950 2GB.

Ideally, I would have games like Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, and Batman: Arkham City running on high/max settings at around 45+ (the more the better) FPS, all at that beautiful 2560x1440 native res, of course. What would I need to upgrade to (assuming I do need to upgrade) to achieve that, or close to that (minimum, recommended)?

Thanks everyone.

-Charlie

More about : gaming 2560x1440

a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2012 11:19:28 PM

The 7970 or wait for the 4GB version of the 680.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:23:33 PM

e56imfg said:
The 7970 or wait for the 4GB version of the 680.

Would I have to spend that much to get what I want? I just want to know, is that the minimum?
m
0
l
Related resources
March 26, 2012 11:29:21 PM

e56imfg said:
The 7970 or wait for the 4GB version of the 680.


Uh... why would he need the 4GB version?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2012 11:32:25 PM

Yes, if you want 45 FPS.

The 7800 series might handle BF3 w/out AA or Ultra settings.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:32:43 PM



If you want max settings at 45fps, yes, you will need a 680 though.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:34:25 PM

Get the monitor and see how your 6950 does. If it does do as well as you want, buy another 6950 and crossfire them.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:35:57 PM

Well what about just on high settings (w/ AA)? Still 680?
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:37:05 PM

Devastater6194 said:
Get the monitor and see how your 6950 does. If it does do as well as you want, buy another 6950 and crossfire them.

Only problem there is that 6950's aren't exactly easy to come by now except for insanely high prices...especially my exact model (Sapphire Dirt3 Edition)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2012 11:37:22 PM

cskoler said:
Well what about just on high settings (w/ AA)? Still 680?
Yea the 7850 will play fine. Just don't crank up the AA too much.
Performance will get better overtime with future drivers.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:39:22 PM

cskoler said:
Well what about just on high settings (w/ AA)? Still 680?


If you buy an ultra high-end monitor, and you want to play on ultra high-end settings, you're going to need an ultra high-end video card :p 

Yes, you can spend less money and play on lowered settings. The GTX 580 isn't too bad now. And if you're not happy with the performance then you can get a second.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:44:41 PM

Well would it even be worth spending money to upgrade to something like a 7850 or 7870? Or would the improvement over my current card not be great enough to justify it?
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:48:10 PM

No. probable not. I wouldn't upgrade to anything below 7970 personally. And I retract my suggestion to get a 580. It would probably be a better use of your money to corssfire your current card.
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 11:50:28 PM

KNO3 said:
No. probable not. I wouldn't upgrade to anything below 7970 personally. And I retract my suggestion to get a 580. It would probably be a better use of your money to corssfire your current card.

Yeah, that's what I thought. And just to be clear--crossfire requires two exactly identical cards, right? Same exact model?
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 12:00:18 AM

No. Manufacturer doesn't matter, and if the clock speed is different one of them should just down clock to the slower card's speed. AMD says you can crossfire two cards in the same hundred series as well but I have no idea how that affects performance.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 12:05:45 AM

no not exactly the same.

The faster card will drop down to the slower cards speed

Your Dirt3 edition is 800mhz Core & 5000 Mhz Mem

if your purchased a 750mhz 4700mhz Mem versoin of a 6950 then your dirt3 version would have to down clock to match the slower card.

same if u purchased a factory OC'd 6950 @ 850mhz Core & 5300Mhz Mem then it would have to downclock to match ur Dirt3

all that matters is that its a 69xx series card. you can even get a 6970 but it will downclock to match ur Dirt3 6950's speed. so its a bit of a waste of $$$

m
0
l
March 27, 2012 12:06:24 AM

cskoler said:
Only problem there is that 6950's aren't exactly easy to come by now except for insanely high prices...especially my exact model (Sapphire Dirt3 Edition)

Even if you have to pay around $300+ for another 6950 2GB you will still be farther ahead rather than spending $500+ on a brand new top of the line GPU so another 6950 is you best bet by far.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 12:10:31 AM

does not even have to be the same brand either. all that matters is the series (69xx)

its only going to be a looks thing as to why you would choose another sapphire dirt 3 edition

I would look for any 6950 with

800mhz core
5000mhz memory
2gb VRAM
1408 Stream Processors.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 12:35:09 AM

I game on a 2560x1440 with the system in my sig. It absolutely takes the gtx580's in SLI to keep frames above 60 in games like BF3. Most of the time I am between 80-100+ fps though there are lots of times where the action gets really heavy and I drop to around 60 fps. On a single 580 at that resolution it runs around 50-80 but can drop to around 30 in heavy action. You can disable some of the candy and do a bit better but I run everything at max and it takes both 580's to do that above 60 fps minimum.

Gaming at that resolution is awesome, everything looks so much better than at 1080 but it comes at a cost of requiring significantly more graphics power. If you want to really max everything and stay smooth at all times you will need something comparable to 580's in SLI. I think a single 680 would be just barely enough and would probably experience some low frames at times though you would have the option to add another at a later date which is a huge plus.
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 3:19:24 PM

Thanks everyone for the help. I think I may end up going for a GTX 680 but I'm probably going to wait a little while. Just one more question: if I were to do SLI 680's at some point, is a 650W PSU enough?
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 4:00:19 PM

No you need at least 750w and I think 53a on the 12v rail. I'd get an 850 just to be safe.

For a system using two GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards in 2-way SLI mode NVIDIA specifies a minimum of a 750 Watt or greater power supply that has a combined +12 Volt continuous current rating of 53 Amps or greater and that has at least four 6-pin PCI Express supplementary power connectors.

Total Power Supply Wattage is NOT the crucial factor in power supply selection!!! Total Continuous Amperage Available on the +12V Rail(s) is the most important factor.
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 4:37:56 PM

Devastater6194 said:
No you need at least 750w and I think 53a on the 12v rail. I'd get an 850 just to be safe.

For a system using two GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards in 2-way SLI mode NVIDIA specifies a minimum of a 750 Watt or greater power supply that has a combined +12 Volt continuous current rating of 53 Amps or greater and that has at least four 6-pin PCI Express supplementary power connectors.

Total Power Supply Wattage is NOT the crucial factor in power supply selection!!! Total Continuous Amperage Available on the +12V Rail(s) is the most important factor.

Just to clear it up a "GOOD" quality 650watt PSU will do it fine for SLI GTX 680 and also a good quality PSU will always have adequate amps on the +12V rail where the GPU derives it's power from.
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 4:39:20 PM

I am a PC said:
Just to clear it up a "GOOD" quality 650watt PSU will do it fine for SLI GTX 680 and also a good quality PSU will always have adequate amps on the +12V rail where the GPU derives it's power from.

OK, then would what I have, a Corsair TX650 V2, do the job?
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 5:07:49 PM

cskoler said:
OK, then would what I have, a Corsair TX650 V2, do the job?


Oh yes thats a pretty good quality PSU almost top of the range in quality and efficiency it will run 2way GTX 680 SLI like a champ.

Corsair - TX650V2

Manufacturer - Seasonic

Max.Load +12V - 636watts

Power Distribution
+12V rails (Amps) - 53Amps

Efficiency
(80 Plus certification) - Bronze

The only thing I do not like about this PSU when it is used for SLI is the fact it only has two PCI-E power connectors so that means you will have to use molex to 6 pin power adapters I have used this in the past it worked fine for me but it is defiantly not ideal and I would be inclined to choose a different PSU if I were you based on this fact alone but if budget is of concern you could do worlds worse than this great PSU from Corsair.



m
0
l

Best solution

a c 125 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 6:03:02 PM

IMO a 7870 will get the job done at high settings with no or 2xAA (but with FXAA).

But of course if you have the budget a 680 is great.

Cheapest course of action though would be a second 6950 which should outperform any single card right now. Especially with a BIOS flash to unlock shaders.

Also you don't need the exact same version card, any 6950 2gb will work. There's also nothing wrong with buying used (or off kijiji/craig's list)
Share
March 27, 2012 6:25:18 PM

Used from Amazon is also a good place to go
m
0
l
a c 540 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 6:49:12 PM

Here you can see where your current graphics card compares to what others have recommended:
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 6:55:54 PM

Bear in mind 2560x1600 is way bigger than x1440 so the FPS will be higher. And like I said, 2xMSAA will add probably a good 10-15FPS on top of that.
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 7:09:05 PM

wolfram23 said:
Bear in mind 2560x1600 is way bigger than x1440 so the FPS will be higher. And like I said, 2xMSAA will add probably a good 10-15FPS on top of that.

2560x1440 is only 160 vertical pixels less than 2560x1600 which is hardly noticeable.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 7:29:21 PM

4,096,000 vs 3,686,400 pixels. That's 11% bigger. Makes a difference on the performance numbers, especially when AA is involved.
m
0
l
March 27, 2012 7:39:06 PM

wolfram23 said:
4,096,000 vs 3,686,400 pixels. That's 11% bigger. Makes a difference on the performance numbers, especially when AA is involved.

not really it's like going from 1080P to 1200P and even then I did not notice difference in framerates. 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 there is a drop of like 5fps bud but thanx and I know what you will say HD+ is more pixels yes but 1050P to 1080P is still a much much bigger jump than 1440 to 1600 and 5fps differential.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 9:24:43 PM

Actually that's a smaller jump. Yes it's 17%, but it's only 309k (1050 vs 1080) more pixels compared to 410k (1440 vs 1600) more.

Regardless, 5 fps is 5 fps. If we were all running at 120fps then whatever, but if you're looking at 30.9 fps with a 7870 at 2560x1600, that 5 fps gain makes a huge difference at 2560x1440.

I'm very torn about answering to your ignorant blabber all the time, you've made countless accounts here and keep getting banned and proven wrong over and over. I'm not even mad, it's kind of fun pointing out all your flaws.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 11:19:26 PM

wolfram23 said:
Bear in mind 2560x1600 is way bigger than x1440 so the FPS will be higher. And like I said, 2xMSAA will add probably a good 10-15FPS on top of that.


I also have a 2560x1600 monitor on another pc I use for business. I have hooked it up to my gaming pc and it didn't make a huge difference. I only lost roughly 5-10 fps and my min still seemed to be around 55 fps. It is a jump but at least for 580's it didn't have a real big impact. It was nothing compared to going from 1080 to the 1440, that change was huge in terms of frame loss.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 27, 2012 11:30:07 PM

I would imagine crossfire 6950s to give you the most performance for your money.

the 680 isn't much faster than 6950 crossfire and cost much more than a second 6950.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 12:48:38 AM

Energy96 said:
I also have a 2560x1600 monitor on another pc I use for business. I have hooked it up to my gaming pc and it didn't make a huge difference. I only lost roughly 5-10 fps and my min still seemed to be around 55 fps. It is a jump but at least for 580's it didn't have a real big impact. It was nothing compared to going from 1080 to the 1440, that change was huge in terms of frame loss.


Yeah, I hear you. But the point I was making is the 7870 is a good card for that resolution as with the 5fps increase from the 30.9 seen on the graph posted, plus about 10fps from reducing AA from 4x to 2x, the fps should be at a comfortable 45.9 at Ultra. That's pretty good! I'm hoping when I upgrade my monitor I will see similar results. I ran 5760x1080 for a little while and I was at around 40-50fps in BF3 at medium, but that is of course a much bigger screen.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 1:35:03 AM

Alright, so I'm curious now: does anyone have a direct comparison of 6950's in crossfire vs. something like a 7970 or 680? Because even if it means buying a new PSU too, getting another 6950 would still be cheaper than a 680/7970.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 1:58:12 AM

whats your psu? the 6950 crossfire will work with a good 650w psu.

The performance should be around that of the 7970 which is just a bit slower than the 680.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 3:17:18 AM


Huh. Pretty close, and a lot cheaper for me. I think it's probably between another 6950 2gb (only one left on newegg is $290) or a 680. Or a 7970 I guess, because of its higher overclocking potential, but I'd probably wait till prices went down. Thoughts anyone? Also, how much could I get for a 6950 2gb in perfect condition with box and cords?
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 3:57:14 AM

maybe $180 or even less. the 560ti is $190 new so you'd have to sell for lower than that I would think.

You might be able to buy a used 6950 for cheap tho.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 5:52:39 AM

Well my 5850s are in the 580/7870 range, and 6950s are quite a bit better than my GPUs, so I'd say they should be, at stock, at least equal to if not better than a 7970/680. Considering their OC potential, they should be faster.

That's just going by my gut feelings (and general benchmark knowledge).
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 2:11:32 PM

wolfram23 said:
Well my 5850s are in the 580/7870 range, and 6950s are quite a bit better than my GPUs, so I'd say they should be, at stock, at least equal to if not better than a 7970/680. Considering their OC potential, they should be faster.

That's just going by my gut feelings (and general benchmark knowledge).

Well it kinda seems like a no-brainer to just get another 6950 if you look at it like that. Is there really any reason at all that I would choose a 680/7970 over that (besides less heat, power draw)?
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 2:43:45 PM

The only real reason to not go multi GPU is the potential for "micro stutter". However, in all the tests on that I've seen, it seems that for some reason it is mostly affecting 6800 cards. The 6900s should be a safe bet.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 6:18:00 PM

wolfram23 said:
The only real reason to not go multi GPU is the potential for "micro stutter". However, in all the tests on that I've seen, it seems that for some reason it is mostly affecting 6800 cards. The 6900s should be a safe bet.

One more thing, and thanks for all your help so far. If I do decide to get another 6950 and put them in crossfire, and they're both unlocked to 6970 shaders, overclocked, etc., will that corsair TX650 still be sufficient?
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 6:20:37 PM

should still be fine.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 9:02:39 PM

And those 2gb of vram are definitely enough?
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 28, 2012 9:03:07 PM

should be no problem.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 10:15:33 PM

Best answer selected by cskoler.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 10:15:53 PM

Thanks for the help, everyone. Appreciate it.
m
0
l
!