I want to game across 3x1080p monitors at max or close to it with maybe even AA? I am currently running two GTX 570 HD 1.28gig and I am getting nasty lag in games like Skyrim, Max Payne 3, DayZ, and BF3 on higher settings. I would like to future-proof this as well, but currently I am only looking forward to Torchlight 2 and SC2 Expansion.
So I guess the vRam is too low for my setup. What kind of figures should I aim for in CUDA, memory interface [256-bit bus?], and vRam? I am looking to upgrade soon, but I wouldn't mind waiting for a better deal. I would like like good performance as I was disappointed with my 2x570 setup. I am only interested in Nvidia cards for now. All advice is greatly appreciated.
wiinippongamer, What is a good ball park for vRam, Memory Interface, and CUDA for games like those? If I go with SLI like 670s, can I just double the figures of vRam, Memory Interface, CUDA and hopefully meet the requirements for these games?
What about the 560ti coming out? I have heard it's suppose to be really nice.
Nope, in SLI the cards have shared memory meaning you'll still only be able to use only 2gb, but it'll still be an improvement over 1.28 and should run those games at that res maxed or near maxed, but I think a 7970 would be better for future-proofing at is has 3gb per card.
The 660ti is expected to be around 7870-7950 levels of performance, though for $300 it better be closer to 7950, no way to know for sure if it's a good deal until it comes out.
What they are saying is that in SLI, you dont add the memory together, you look at it per card. A 670 has 2 gigs of ram. 2 670's in SLI while total memory is 4 gigs, each card still only has 2 gigs of ram so the memory isnt totaled together. The same is true for the 690, while it has 4 gigs total, its really 2 670's with 2 gigs of ram each. The same goes for crossfire.
While a 670 is a great card, for multi-monitor gaming a 7970 is the way to go and to max settings you'll need atleast 2 cards. When going up to a multi-monitor resolution the more Vram you have the better. The 7970 having 3 gigs of Vram vs the 670 having 2 gigs makes the 7970 better at higher resolutions. I personally run a Sapphire 7950 that I have overclocked past a stock 7970. Works great with my 3+1 setup. Gaming on 3 screens while still playing video on another works well.
I'll repost something I just said in a similar post, which was about 2560x1440 (similar concerns though).
I encourage you to check the benchmarks that Anandtech haad recently in a review of the 680 Classified, a heavily tweaked 680. It's important because it shows two things: (1) the effect of new drivers on both sets of cards; (2) the limitation not only of the quantity of VRAM, but of the bus width, at high resolutions. Anyway, you should read the whole review, which is informative, but also check out the benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096 [...] d-review/5 and http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096 [...] d-review/6
For the most part that first page shows AMD-favoring games, and the second shows nvidia-favoring ones. But while the gaps are relatively small all around, you can see that the 7970 and 7950 are relatively better at higher resolutions--they have larger advantages or narrower disadvantages than at lower resolutions.
The 670 isn't a bad choice either--people make too much of the 3GB of VRAM for current gaming even at high resolutions, and it's more efficient in all games and still just better in some games. But I'd still go for the 7970 for a few reasons: it's more overclockable; it's best at those higher resolutions; and the RAM and RAM bandwidth will be an issue faster (that is, sooner--for games coming out soon) at higher resolutions.
I am also having issues with running movies on the fourth screen while trying to game at the same time. It gets choppy in the audio and video. Would more vRam fix this?
I am still a bit confused about vRam. Although the vRam is higher on 7970, the benchmark is almost the same with a 670. Why is that? The results for Skyrim at 5760x1080 between 670 and 7970 is only 3 FPS differences. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Ed...
With BF3 it's only two frame different, while Civ 5 @2560x1600 the 670 actually pulls ahead. Wouldn't the vRam help a lot more then only a couple of frames increase?
I am more worried about the fact that my games are unplayable at higher settings, so I need to fix that issue. If vRam is the answer, then I will go down that route. With that being said, then 670 4gb out preforms 7970 then? Is there charts out on the benchmarks? because 500 isn't bad at all.
670 should not be compared to a 7970, as a 7970 overclocked will beat out a 670 significantly. Most of the time a stock 7970 goes up against a kepler card that has autoboost up to 1200mhz in reviews and benches. A 670 overall is slower than a 7970, for mulitpanel 3X1080p go with the 7970 as 3GB and a 384 bit bus will help you.
Single card will not be faster than your current setup. Either way, both GTX 670 and HD 7970 perform very very similarly.
This is correct, although the 7970's performance compared to the 670's improves at high resolutions. Look at some benchmarks from the anandtech article I linked, or from the Tom's review of the 7970 GHz edition, which also shows a vanilla 7970 (though note, of course, that you can OC the vanilla to achieve basically the same thing): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-... You will see that at higher resolutions and AA settings, which demand more and quicker VRAM, the 7970 either widens its lead or closes its gap with the 670. I think it's a coin flip (or a game-by-game thing) at 1080p, but the 7970 has a clear (though inconsistent) edge at higher resolutions.