Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

EVGA NVidia 670 = what monitor?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 28, 2012 11:30:31 AM

Getting a new rig, stats:

Intel i7 3930k Processor (6 core)
Intel BOXDX79TO Extreme Series Motherboard
16GB RAM
Intel 520 Series 180GB Soild State Drive + 1TB WD
Antec H2O 620 Series CPU Liquid Cooling System
EVGA NVidia 670 2gig
850 Watt Thermaltake Modular Power supply

Games played most often are COD, WoW, D3, Skyrim, SC2.
I'd like to get excellent FPS (60+) with ultra settings and not wear out my card too quickly (I'm not planning on overclocking)
Though I would like to take advantage of my system and get the most resolution I can.

My thoughts were either:
Three cheaper 22" 1920x1080 monitors in a widescreen setup (expecting to lose FPS)
one expensive IPS, fancy 24" 1920x1080(or1200) monitor (maximum FPS)
or one 27-30" 1560x1440(or 1600) monitor (Less FPS)

Which do you think my system is best built to run?
June 28, 2012 11:32:31 AM

forgot to add:

Hi. lol. Love this site.

Best solution

June 28, 2012 11:46:32 AM
Share

IPS are just better supposedly for viewing angels and colors. They are extremely expensive and offer higher response rates which isn't the best for gaming. It could possibly give you a ghosting issue. TN monitors (most common monitors out there) are way cheaper and offer lower response rates in the 2ms-3ms range. Most gamers use a TN LED monitor. Consider the ASUS monitor I have in my signature. I play a lot of the same games you have and the monitor I own is stunning in performance and in colors. By the way, don't get caught up in losing or gaining FPS with monitors. Monitors don't determine your FPS for the most part. Your computer and the components you put into will ultimately determine your max or min fps outcome.
Related resources
June 28, 2012 11:48:37 AM

And on one additional note, your computer specs are very nice. You will be able to max out any of your games in 1080p resolutions and never have a issue dipping below 60fps. I know because my computer setup is very similar to yours. Good luck my friend!!!
June 28, 2012 11:49:02 AM

I know monitor size makes no difference, but resolution does.

Based on my stats, would you recommend gaming at 1080p? or perhaps 2560x1440 or even 2560x1600.

3 monitors would put even more stress on the system.
June 28, 2012 8:56:36 PM

1080p for sure if your running a single 670. Any game will look fantastic in that resolution. Once you start getting higher than 1080p resolutions and your maxing out the graphic settings, you might want to consider sli perhaps so you can keep your frame rates above 60 hopefully. This is just my opinion, most people would agree with me I would think.
June 28, 2012 9:07:43 PM

You can definitely do 5760x1080 on your setup. However, like stickem said, you will not be able to achieve 60 frames at the highest graphics settings(newer games). I have researched exactly what you are talking about a lot, and have a pretty similar setup with the 670. On BF3, you can do triple monitor with about medium settings and get about 60 frames. And given the fact that the games you listed are generally less demanding than bf3, you should be good if you don't mind turning down a few settings.

From what I have read, the IPS monitors really aren't worth it. The people who talk them up tend to be graphics designers or people who have excess income. I have the same monitor as stickem, and it is great. I am about to get 2 more once I have the money, so I can rock the surround in BF3.
June 28, 2012 9:24:42 PM

For 3 monitors you're better of with a 7970 if you want to use AA at those resolutions or get a GTX 670 4GB
June 29, 2012 12:43:54 PM

I hate to admit it, but the 7970 either rivals or out performs the 670/680 series in extreme resolutions above 1080p if I am not mistaken. I personaly have had some bad experiences with ATI/AMD products in the past and I don't like their driver support. I tend to stay with Nvidia for stability reasons.

I he does consider a multi monitor setup and runs in higher resolutions than 1080p, I could see my self recommending a 670 4GB or even a sli'ed 670 4GB setup
a c 91 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 29, 2012 12:55:26 PM

theconsolegamer said:
For 3 monitors you're better of with a 7970 if you want to use AA at those resolutions or get a GTX 670 4GB

Not worth it, that 4GB still runs in a 256bit bus.... Better go with the 7970 with 3gb and a 386bit bus if he's definitely going triple monitor
June 29, 2012 12:59:25 PM

Stickem said:
I hate to admit it, but the 7970 either rivals or out performs the 670/680 series in extreme resolutions above 1080p if I am not mistaken. I personaly have had some bad experiences with ATI/AMD products in the past and I don't like their driver support. I tend to stay with Nvidia for stability reasons.

I he does consider a multi monitor setup and runs in higher resolutions than 1080p, I could see my self recommending a 670 4GB or even a sli'ed 670 4GB setup


From what I have researched the 4GB 670 makes very little difference unless you have them sli'd. I had considered getting one, but was told this exact thing by many other users on Toms. I would just get a nice OC'd card.
June 29, 2012 1:02:55 PM

theconsolegamer said:
For 3 monitors you're better of with a 7970 if you want to use AA at those resolutions or get a GTX 670 4GB


Using AA on a single card multi monitor setup would be really stupid in the first place, as you will already have to turn down settings quite a bit to achieve 60 frames(assuming it's a newer graphics intensive game like BF3.) But it is true that if you do use the AA on ultra settings with a multi setup the 7970 will be better as the 2gb cards will crash. However, you will be well below 30 frames on the 7970 so whats the point.
a c 88 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 29, 2012 1:08:02 PM

From all the reviews the 680 with 2GB of vram performs about the same and trades blows with the 7970 with 3 monitors in some games, it will not crash with 2 GB of vram, saying so is really bad advice roadkill922. Have a look at the 680 review toms did when it was first released and its compared to the 7970 with 3 monitors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli...
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2012 2:30:42 PM

vmem said:
Not worth it, that 4GB still runs in a 256bit bus.... Better go with the 7970 with 3gb and a 386bit bus if he's definitely going triple monitor

7970 bus is 50% wider, but 670 bus is 50% faster and the ultimate bandwidth is about the same. This saved die space and is one of the reasons the nVidia chips draw less power. Its just a tradeoff: nobody expected nVidia to be able to pull off such high bus speed. The 7970 does seem scale better to higher resolutions, but there are dozens of design elements (most likely and obvious being 3Gb vs 2Gb) that can explain that. As consumers we're lucky we have 2 very clever competitors duking it out and they've built two very different systems with very close performance characteristics.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2012 2:39:39 PM

Did you already buy your psu? Thermaltake psus have been pretty inconsistent: they have some great ones and in the past they've had some real clunkers. Make sure you read reviews of the exact model you're getting. Here's one from a couple years back that didn't do so well:

http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=...
June 29, 2012 4:23:01 PM

monsta said:
From all the reviews the 680 with 2GB of vram performs about the same and trades blows with the 7970 with 3 monitors in some games, it will not crash with 2 GB of vram, saying so is really bad advice roadkill922. Have a look at the 680 review toms did when it was first released and its compared to the 7970 with 3 monitors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli...


Read this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1642...

I don't personally own a 680, so I can't personally back this up from experience (I have a 670). This post on techpowerup showed a 680 crashing when playing BF3 ultra with full AA. The card was also OC'd so I don't if that made a difference. Just wanted to point out that I am not talking out of my ass. It's not bad advice, it is just something to consider.
July 1, 2012 12:03:26 PM

roadkill922 said:
Read this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1642...

I don't personally own a 680, so I can't personally back this up from experience (I have a 670). This post on techpowerup showed a 680 crashing when playing BF3 ultra with full AA. The card was also OC'd so I don't if that made a difference. Just wanted to point out that I am not talking out of my ass. It's not bad advice, it is just something to consider.

Yeah, there was this vid on youtube showing a GTX 680 running out of VRAM in real-time when you up the AA. I'm looking for it but can't find it. It was a benchmark but showed how VRAM was consumed when up changed slides in real-time man.
July 6, 2012 12:37:09 AM

Best answer selected by Gruxxar.
July 7, 2012 1:36:53 AM

Thanks for the award Gruxxar! Did you ever decide on what monitor setup you were going to go with?
!