I plan on getting a GTX 680 within a month or so if they are ever restocked. I will be mainly using it to play BF3. I am debating getting 2 more 1080p monitors for surround gaming, or getting a single 3D monitor instead.
Here's my question:
Given that it is a single 680, I am aware that it will not run 5760x1080 on ultra settings. Does anyone have an educated guess as to what settings I would be able to run while maintaining frames between 35-60.
Another option would be to get a 3D monitor instead. Is there anyone that can vouch for Nvidia 3D? Is it actually worth it, or is it just a gimmick?
So, really the question is surround gaming on slightly lower settings or 3D gaming on higher settings?
GIGABYTE GA-Z68A-D3-B3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
if it's a personal preference then go with surround otherwise i would suggest a signle 120hz monitor.you will max out any game at 1080p with a single 680.BTW,670 performs about 10% less than 680 but costs 100 bucks less,you can always overclock 670 to beat a stock 680.
What I like about the 3D monitors - more than the 3D - is the 120Hz refresh rates for 2D. Makes for good, smooth, high framerate action. You notice a difference when you first use them and just appreciate the performance in the first-person shooters. You are seeing the frames in between what an opponent with a 60Hz refresh rate is seeing. Seems trivial, but it comes down to what you see and how quickly you can respond. This is where you gain some advantage from the 120Hz refresh rate of the 3D monitor in 2D.
For BF3 in 3D, I feel like I'm playing at a disadvantage and always play considerably worse in multi-player. Everything seems a little off. I guess you could get used to it, but I don't have the patience. Now a lower-key game like Skyrim or Diablo and 3D is enjoyable for me.
I often entertain the thought of going to 3 monitors or 2560x1600 myself, but I'm such a stickler for the details, I don't want to turn any details down or AA down/off in order to run across 3 screens while keeping the framerates high enough (over 60 consistently) that it doesn't get choppy.
Consider the tomshardware.com review on framerates over 3 screens:
With AA on and two 680s @ 5760x1080, the FPS are under 60fps. With AA on and one 680 @ 5760x1080, you're looking at 31fps. That's an average. So you're going to hit some choppy lows across 3 screens if you don't turn AA off. And that's during the single-player campaign which has higher framerates on average than multi-player. 680s are the best cards out, but once you introduce additional screens, there's a lot to consider.
So, unless I run with 3 or 4 680s and I can get high quality (with AA) and high performance, I'm sticking to the single monitor with the fast-performance. With 2 cards, 2560x1600 seems more realist, though I don't like the input lag that goes along with the IPS monitors. The IPS monitors have the best picture, though they are less responsive and prone to ghosting.
This is why I stick to BF3 on a single 120Hz monitor for now. I hope that helps?
Thanks for the replies. The prospect of playing on ultra with 60+ frames on a 120hz monitor actually sounds really awesome. Not sure why I didn't really think about that advantage before. And since the 670 can achieve this on its own, I think I will end up going in that direction. Hopefully I will be able to see a noticeable difference playing above 60 frames. I have heard that above 60 you can't really tell a difference, but I guess it just varies from person to person.