Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which brand GTX 670 @ 2560x1600?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 12, 2012 6:21:10 PM

Rig is solid, display is dell 30' @ 2560x1600, all things being equal which 670 should I buy this evening?

NewEgg GTX670 list

The EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB is the best rated available card at the moment.
I can wait or find the out of stock cards elsewhere... so those are still in the running.

Would the 2560x1600 run better with the lone EVGA 4gb vram card?
I have 1 20' Dell and if I get a second I could have this three monitor setup.
Which is 4960x1600 and that might call for the 4GB vram, but would I want to game with that ridiculousness?
I don't know..I'm toying with the idea..

What do you fine gentlemen think?
June 12, 2012 6:27:10 PM

ghb70005 said:
Rig is solid, display is dell 30' @ 2560x1600, all things being equal which 670 should I buy this evening?

NewEgg GTX670 list

The EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB is the best rated available card at the moment.
I can wait or find the out of stock cards elsewhere... so those are still in the running.

Would the 2560x1600 run better with the lone EVGA 4gb vram card?
I have 1 20' Dell and if I get a second I could have this three monitor setup.
Which is 4960x1600 and that might call for the 4GB vram, but would I want to game with that ridiculousness?
I don't know..I'm toying with the idea..

What do you fine gentlemen think?



I think 4GB, for now, is unnecessary unless you will be doing a multi-monitor setup at those resolutions. For just 1 monitor at that resolution, 2GB is even overkill, again, for now. EVGA would definately be the brand to go with. They always make very high quality parts, plus their warranty service is one of the best, and is better than ever because now their warranties can be transferred to anyone you sell the card to, when that time comes.
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 6:30:59 PM

The Radeon HD 7970 tends to perform better than the GeForce 670/680 at 2560x1600, even more so when overclocked reasonably
m
0
l
Related resources
June 12, 2012 6:40:16 PM

Only card I ever had fry was a Saphire ATI card. (no OC)
Now I have an aversion to smaller brands & ATI/AMD.
I know it was a fluke and plenty of people like their products but...
I have the cash and I want the dominant architectures for this build.. Intel/Nvidia
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 6:41:50 PM

Pinhedd said:
The Radeon HD 7970 tends to perform better than the GeForce 670/680 at 2560x1600, even more so when overclocked reasonably

I'll 2nd that opinion. and this has a lot more to do with the extra memory bandwidth the 7970 have vs the 670/680 than 2 or 3 or 4GB of memory
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 6:44:48 PM

ghb70005 said:
vI have the cash and I want the dominant architectures for this build.. Intel/Nvidia



Amen
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 6:48:39 PM

Honestly, when both cards are overclocked, and benchmarks are run at highest settings and 2500x1600, HD 7970 and GTX 680 are about the same. HD 7970 even has the advantage in some games. Go for an HD 7970 and overclock it (very easy and stable), you won't regret it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 6:52:39 PM

Pinhedd said:
The Radeon HD 7970 tends to perform better than the GeForce 670/680 at 2560x1600, even more so when overclocked reasonably


Why not 670 is better as it supports physx? These three card are almost equal in performance, but 670 has some benefit.
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 6:56:38 PM

Ok here is the thing. The Radeon cards are very nice pieces of hardware, but the DRIVERS suck. There are always problems at major game releases including performance problems. I got fed up and switched to Nvidia. Plus Nvidia has physx, which more and more games are taking advantage of. Many games like Bulletstorm, Batman AA/AC, Max Payne 3, etc. all boast the Nvidia logo upon opening the application and are supposedly optimized for Nvidia cards.
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 7:06:08 PM

I agree with jerubedo.
On an industry level we want competition and a variety of options.
On a personal level I want the best gaming experience regardless.

The perception is that Nvidia, Intel, and the game developers are playing ball together so I've got to stick with the best team.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:07:45 PM

jerubedo said:
Ok here is the thing. The Radeon cards are very nice pieces of hardware, but the DRIVERS suck. There are always problems at major game releases including performance problems. I got fed up and switched to Nvidia. Plus Nvidia has physx, which more and more games are taking advantage of. Many games like Bulletstorm, Batman AA/AC, Max Payne 3, etc. all boast the Nvidia logo upon opening the application and are supposedly optimized for Nvidia cards.


just trying to point the OP to the best hardware available for his resolution. the 7970 has a 384-bit memory bus as opposed to the 256-bit bus for the 680/670. normally it's not an issue, it's not even that big of a deal for 1600p, but ultimately, as you go up in resolution, the bandswidth of the memory interface comes into play, which is why the 670/680 starts to get beaten by the 7970 on 3-monitor set ups etc.

as for drivers, owning a radeon card myself atm, I agree with you completely. HOWEVER, I haven't had the pleasure of owning a gtx6** card, but I hear there has been a few horrendous drivers from Nvidia recently
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:10:41 PM

ghb70005 said:
I agree with jerubedo.
On an industry level we want competition and a variety of options.
On a personal level I want the best gaming experience regardless.

The perception is that Nvidia, Intel, and the game developers are playing ball together so I've got to stick with the best team.


if you're settled on Nvidia, then that's your choice... that aside, to answer your question, any 670/680 will do. they're both limited by their 256-bit memory interface, not by the memory size for a single 1600p monitor, so it really doesn't make a difference which one you pick. just either pick the cheapest one, or the one with the highest OC/runs the coolest, or whatever you prefer
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 7:14:58 PM

30 inch ips? why not go for the gtx 680?
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:18:28 PM

mubin said:
Why not 670 is better as it supports physx? These three card are almost equal in performance, but 670 has some benefit.


PhysX is not a free addition to the card, it chews up compute resources just the same as rendering a scene. One major reviewer (I think it might have been Toms) did an absolutely horrible review comparing the 680 to the 7970 on some games with PhysX turned on (Arkham City I think). Lo and Behold the 680 was a solid 20-30 fps behind the 7970, they did not test the game with PhysX turned off.

As nice as PhysX is, it requires a second card to be used in SLI or as a dedicated PhysX card lest it negatively impact the framerate. At the same time it's possible to run a Hybrid PhysX hack where and AMD GPU is used to render while an NVidia GPU serves as a dedicated PhysX unit.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:18:52 PM

So driver for new 7000 series suck. I have no problem with my 6770 atm.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:22:13 PM

mubin said:
So driver for new 7000 series suck. I have no problem with my 6770 atm.

the newest 12.6beta is actually awesome. solved any remaining minor issues I was having, and boosted my benchmark scores a bit more for my 7970 :D 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:25:04 PM

Pinhedd said:
PhysX is not a free addition to the card, it chews up compute resources just the same as rendering a scene. One major reviewer (I think it might have been Toms) did an absolutely horrible review comparing the 680 to the 7970 on some games with PhysX turned on (Arkham City I think). Lo and Behold the 680 was a solid 20-30 fps behind the 7970, they did not test the game with PhysX turned off.

As nice as PhysX is, it requires a second card to be used in SLI or as a dedicated PhysX card lest it negatively impact the framerate. At the same time it's possible to run a Hybrid PhysX hack where and AMD GPU is used to render while an NVidia GPU serves as a dedicated PhysX unit.


I thought 670 is a better option than 7970. I didnt know about physx hack. Thanks.
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 7:25:38 PM

v90k said:
30 inch ips? why not go for the gtx 680?


30' was justified for productivity, that's a lot of excel cells..

I think 670 gets me in the big league at $400ish and defines the diminishing returns wall.
$500 for gaming hits the guilt mark when I should be spending that time & money on making more money..
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:35:24 PM

mubin said:
I thought 670 is a better option than 7970. I didnt know about physx hack. Thanks.


The 670 is an awesome card by all means and is an absolute champ at mid range resolutions. I would absolutely recommend it for anyone with a 1080p monitor or less. However I love my 30 inch IPS panel and gaming at 2560x1600 was a requirement for me so I opted for the dual 7970s. A handful of driver issues aside (expected with a brand new architecture), I have no regrets.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 7:35:35 PM

ghb70005 said:

$500 for gaming hits the guilt mark when I should be spending that time & money on making more money..


you mean just the extra $100 right? because the time's really your call :p ... then again, this is coming from someone who does a lot of 3D rendering/modeling
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 10:26:13 PM

Thanks guys, y'all are the best!!
m
0
l
a c 106 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 10:44:00 PM

the 670 is overall a better performer, but to the one person who said that amd is the only one with driver problems. You dont seem to recognize that in the past few weeks, several people have already have problems with their 670 drivers as well. Everyone has driver problems, not only amd.

TL;DR, the 670 will more likely serve a better purpose unless you plan on expanding to several screens. using drivers as an argument is null in this situation because both have problems for being new.
m
0
l
June 12, 2012 10:56:32 PM

ok, lets hit on the extra monitors.
If I'm pushing 4960x1600 pixels, what Nvidia card do I want?

Go up in power to 680 or vram with 670 4gb?
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 11:06:20 PM

Any single GPU is going to choke horribly at that resolution
m
0
l
a c 226 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 11:08:54 PM

The Asus DCII Cu TOP toasts all comers. Hears a comparison of the EVGA SC and the Asus TOP:

Asus DCII Cu TOP
http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-geforce-gtx-670-dire...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Boost Clock (outta the box) - 1137 MHz
Boost Clock (Overclocked) - 1280 MHz
3D Mark 11 Score - 9839

EVGA SC
http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-670-sc-r...
Boost Clock (outta the box) - 1046 MHz
Boost Clock (Overclocked) - 1200 MHz
3D Mark 11 Score - 9443

The FTW version is about 40% of the way between the two with an outta the box boost clock of 1084

A for PhysX .... my son runs twin Asus 560 Ti DCII Cu TOP cards (1020 MHz) in SLI and plays Arkham City @ 120 Hz in 3D w/ PhysX smooth a silk. I have only managed to get on a few times but sliding along on a wire in 3D in BAC s a kick.

Quote:
but would I want to game with that ridiculousness?


Well the same could be said for the 30" IPS ....... don't get me wrong, I love the IPS panels ..... for photo editing. On the Dell IPS upstairs, that's the primary purpose for the Dell .... it's accurate color rendering ...... and it "doesn't suck" for gaming.......

But given the choice of available monitors, my first choice for business graphics, AutoCAD and ..... ***GAMING*** .... is not going to be an IPS panel.

Scroll down to the input lag and responsiveness sections in the link below to see why.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3011.htm

For gaming, I'd use an Asus 27" 120 Hz panel or .... if wavering to the ridiculous :)  ..... three Asus 120 Hz 24" 23.6" panels.
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 11:09:14 PM

ghb, out of that list on Newegg, at first glance you only have one card with aftermarket cooling, the one from Galaxy. All the others appear to be reference designs.

However, the EVGA FTW actually uses the full GTX 680 PCB and cooler. With a good core overclock, overclocked memory, and higher binned chips, it should be a great card. Get one and crank up that PhysX to the Extreme setting.
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27432-evga-gtx-670-ft...
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/40613-evga-gefor...
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
June 12, 2012 11:12:55 PM

ghb70005 said:
ok, lets hit on the extra monitors.
If I'm pushing 4960x1600 pixels, what Nvidia card do I want?

Go up in power to 680 or vram with 670 4gb?

At that res, your only choice on Newegg for 4Gb is the EVGA GTX 670 Superclocked:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
June 13, 2012 5:08:02 PM

OK guys, after a nice glass of scotch I went full retard and got the 4GB EVGA 670 Superclocked
I will get that second 20' monitor to round out the 3 monitor setup.
While it won't play Skyrim on 4960x1600 at full throttle, it might get close enough for a lighter strategy game.

I do have an extra GTS 250 1GB so there's a little physx there..

THANK YOU!!
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 13, 2012 5:11:46 PM

ghb70005 said:
OK guys, after a nice glass of scotch I went full retard and got the 4GB EVGA 670 Superclocked
I will get that second 20' monitor to round out the 3 monitor setup.
While it won't play Skyrim on 4960x1600 at full throttle, it might get close enough for a lighter strategy game.

I do have an extra GTS 250 1GB so there's a little physx there..

THANK YOU!!


don't use the GTS 250 for physX. the difference between it and the 670 is too great. meaning you'll likely get fewer fps using the GTS 250 for physx than having the 670 do everything. think about it, your system will have to wait for the gts250 to finish all it's physx calculations for every frame, REGARDLESS of how fast everything else can be done. if you don't believe me, you can benchmark them with and without the 250 once your 670 arrives :) 
m
0
l
June 13, 2012 5:21:28 PM

vmem said:
don't use the GTS 250 for physX. the difference between it and the 670 is too great. meaning you'll likely get fewer fps using the GTS 250 for physx than having the 670 do everything. think about it, your system will have to wait for the gts250 to finish all it's physx calculations for every frame, REGARDLESS of how fast everything else can be done. if you don't believe me, you can benchmark them with and without the 250 once your 670 arrives :) 



NO WAY!!
Makes sense, but I'll have to benchmark that and get back to you.
What a crock of sh@T, all that marketing about getting use out of your old card!
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
June 13, 2012 5:37:03 PM

ghb70005 said:
NO WAY!!
Makes sense, but I'll have to benchmark that and get back to you.
What a crock of sh@T, all that marketing about getting use out of your old card!

People get too caught up in that. The only way to know is to try it yourself. The flipside is you might get a boost of around 25% in PhysX games if everything works as it's supposed to. You won't need a dedicated PhysX card though with a GTX 670. Your framerates in Batman, etc. will still be great.
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 13, 2012 6:05:51 PM

17seconds said:
People get too caught up in that. The only way to know is to try it yourself. The flipside is you might get a boost of around 25% in PhysX games if everything works as it's supposed to. You won't need a dedicated PhysX card though with a GTX 670. Your framerates in Batman, etc. will still be great.


Hardware heaven disagrees with you

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1452/pg10/nvidia-...

Enabling PhysX has a huge performance hit at 1920x1080 on a 680 and this would be even worse on a 670 at 2560x1600
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
June 13, 2012 9:37:16 PM

Pinhedd said:
Hardware heaven disagrees with you

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1452/pg10/nvidia-...

Enabling PhysX has a huge performance hit at 1920x1080 on a 680 and this would be even worse on a 670 at 2560x1600

But it's a nice problem to have. I've played it quite well on my system, even with physx set to extreme. You can always adjust the settings as required, but ultimately it's better problem to have than to not have at all.
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/12/05/batman_arkham_cit...
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/04/galaxy_geforc...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2012 11:05:36 AM

vmem said:
the newest 12.6beta is actually awesome. solved any remaining minor issues I was having, and boosted my benchmark scores a bit more for my 7970 :D 


Are you talking about AMD Catalyst Application Profiles 12.6 Beta? Display driver is still 12.4 in AMD website.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 14, 2012 2:49:43 PM

mubin said:
Are you talking about AMD Catalyst Application Profiles 12.6 Beta? Display driver is still 12.4 in AMD website.


to be honest, I clicked the "get it here" link on tom's article about AMD driver updates... didn't even read what I'm installing on the AMD page (guess I really trust TH haha)

anyway, just went back and checked, I'm pretty sure drivers are included

http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst1...
m
0
l
a c 115 U Graphics card
June 14, 2012 5:34:26 PM

vmem said:
to be honest, I clicked the "get it here" link on tom's article about AMD driver updates... didn't even read what I'm installing on the AMD page (guess I really trust TH haha)

anyway, just went back and checked, I'm pretty sure drivers are included

http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst1...


The 12.6 beta CAP profiles are available on the website

The 12.6 beta Drivers are available elsewhere
m
0
l
!