Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2560x1440 GPU card question!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 13, 2012 5:46:59 PM

Would there be a big fps decrease if I were to use this monitor on a GTX 670.

I was going to get 2 670's in sli, but I'm curious if I really should.
If I can still maintain 45+ fps on crysis 2 and skyrim on a single 670.

Currently using a 1920x1080 21 inch monitor.

Should I go sli or not?
Mainly want to do this because the 670 uses very little of the PSU and for pretty high end fps.

This will be used with a i2500k and ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3.
a c 106 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 5:58:51 PM

Battlefield 3 wise, you should just be under 45 fpsish with AA at 4x with a single 670.

Skyrim wise, you should be fine, crysis wise, you will pass in dx9 mode. fail to hit 45 on dx11 mode.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:02:23 PM

actually, at this resolution, a 7970 is a better option
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:03:39 PM

the 670 should be good. once you get ahold of the graphics card and see that you dont have enough performance, grab another 670
m
0
l
a c 270 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:07:11 PM

I doubt you would have a problem.

Why not try it and see first?
I would avoid sli issues if possible, favoring a single great card.
And, keep your 1080P as a side monitor for e-mail, monitors, and whatever. It won't hurt.


Those who have gone to 2560 x 1440 seem to love it.

m
0
l
a c 166 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:07:33 PM

I have a Dell U2711 (2560x1440)

Most games don't look much different at 1920x1080 than they do at 2560x1440 yet the frame rate is higher.

So over 90% of my games are run at 1920x1080 despite my having a GTX680.

Some exceptions (not all):
- Diablo 3
- Dragon Age

*The general rule of thumb is that if you can't run the game at 60FPS with full quality don't go above 1920x1080.

Going to 2560x1440 is usually most obvious on the user interface not the main game, for example in Dragon Age the text is sharper.
m
0
l
a c 624 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:09:44 PM

Skyrim looks good, but Crysis 2 might be pushing it.




m
0
l
a c 166 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:10:46 PM

SLI:
Don't get SLI. First of all there is a micro-stutter issue. Secondly, a GTX670/680 can play most games at the highest quality anyway.

Since you're considering SLI, money's no issue. Maybe get this 3-slot card (the one I have):

Asus GTX680 DirectCU II
(the TOP version with 1139MHz, not the slower one.)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:18:32 PM

photonboy said:
SLI:
Don't get SLI. First of all there is a micro-stutter issue. Secondly, a GTX670/680 can play most games at the highest quality anyway.

Since you're considering SLI, money's no issue. Maybe get this 3-slot card (the one I have):

Asus GTX680 DirectCU II
(the TOP version with 1139MHz, not the slower one.)


if it was up to me to get a 680, id get the msi lightning 680. 2 slot and its cooler than the asus 3 slot (or so i heard)

m
0
l
a c 166 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:25:27 PM

Crysis 2:
You can max out this game on a GTX670 with ALMOST the highest settings.

Skyrim:
You can max out this game on a GTX670 without the HD texture pack. Most of the time I max it out with my GTX680 (TOP version) but I get occasional drops to around 50FPS (with the HD texture pack).

BF3:
I can also almost max out this game, but if I want a solid 60FPS I'd have to drop a few things just slightly.
m
0
l
a c 166 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2012 6:27:49 PM

TheBigTroll said:
if it was up to me to get a 680, id get the msi lightning 680. 2 slot and its cooler than the asus 3 slot (or so i heard)


The GTX 680 TOP (1139MHz version) can't be beat for performance and noise. It's only drawback is the 3-slots but the reason for the great performance and noise is the extra heatsink cooling provided by the extra volume of three slots.
m
0
l
!