Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

120hz & 120fps gpu requirement

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 25, 2012 2:20:22 PM

Dear tom's hardware community,

I'm planning for my new rig which is finalized except for graphic cards, would require more information from the more experienced than me.

About me:
Ive built many computer rigs so far as a hobby. Overclocker & Cooler Enthusiast. Working as a Programmer.

Core computer components related to GFX:
Proc: Intel i5-3570k (O.C)
Mobo: Asus Maximus V Extreme z77
Monitor: Asus VG278H 27" for games & 24" Dell UltraSharp IPS for work.
RAM: G.skill 4x4gb 2600mhz (O.C)
PSU: Corsair AX 850

Usage: Heavy gaming (WoW, Skyrim, BF3, Crysis 2, Max Payne 3, Arkham City + dozens more) & work (extensive programming & encoding) as well as a lot of web surfing.

Going to play on the Asus monitor 1920x1080 aiming to maintain 120hz & 120fps in 2D with max settings as much as possible & 60+ fps in 3D games. Please advice regarding which graphics would closely maintain those numbers:

***Asus DirectCUII gtx 670/680 TOP Edition Single/SLI in case of sli then throw gtx 690 in the mix either of these choices for single monitor gaming will be overclocked***

P.S I have done my homework & read a lot, I know SLI is overkill for single monitor gaming but I'm aiming at maintaining 120fps in 2D or 60+ in 3D gaming with a hint of future proofing.
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 2:50:44 PM

I currently have a i7-2700k (no OC), a 7870 Ref, with 16GB ram. I run an S23a750d with tridef for 3d. I was just a bit shy of full FPS in skyrim on ultra in 3d 1080p (around 100-110 fps IIRC), and a little closer (about 115fps IIRC) in 2d mode. Other less taxing games have run quite smoothly, I haven't mucked with BF3 or Crysis 2, but I would expect those maybe on the shortlist of more taxing games than skyrim.

I have heard that tridef isn't as efficient as Nvidia, but I don't know that for sure. I rather wish I had gone with a 7950 or 7970 when I purchased, but they were more expensive than I wanted to pay.

I would expect a 670 would still be your best buy, as most of what I've heard put it only slightly behind the 680 in performance (but 100$ cheaper). Plan to SLI another 670 in the future though if you want to keep your settings at max with future titles.

The PSU you've chosen is more than enough to run 2x670s in SLI, and should have more than enough headroom for some solid overclocks.


Score
0
September 25, 2012 4:54:23 PM

Thanks a lot for the input at least now i know that a single 670 can handle that much would a 680 be able to get a more noticeable difference given its only a small increase in terms of shaders and power compared to a 670?

Any more info is welcome from other users this is the 1st time buying myself a 120hz monitor so i need all the help i can get
Score
0
Related resources
a c 84 U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 5:18:42 PM

Quote:
Humans cant see past 60hz or 60fps. You only need 120HZ or 120fps for 3D because it renders everything doubled.

thats bs
Score
0
September 25, 2012 5:23:56 PM

Quote:
Humans cant see past 60hz or 60fps. You only need 120HZ or 120fps for 3D because it renders everything doubled.



Kindly leave the thread because clearly u don't know what you're talking about, if u cant help don't bother posting.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 5:26:10 PM

Humans can see past 60 fps...

I have a GTX 670 and a 120hz monitor that I use for 2D. My 670 pegs BF3 at Ultra at an avg. of about 90 fps. You will need a 2nd 670 to truly max the game at 120 fps.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 5:37:21 PM

I believe that the 670 is within a few % of the 680's performance. Unless you don't mind paying an extra 100$ for 3% or 4% more power (and another extra 100 if you SLI later) the 670 is really the best choice.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 5:43:44 PM

jstanley11 said:
Humans can see past 60 fps...

I have a GTX 670 and a 120hz monitor that I use for 2D. My 670 pegs BF3 at Ultra at an avg. of about 90 fps. You will need a 2nd 670 to truly max the game at 120 fps.


im going to call BS on you playing BF3 at ultra at 90fps. either thats max fps or thats single player and either way thats a stretch.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/510?vs=598

btw most humans cant tell the difference between a CONSTANT 60 and 120 fps. its the changes in fps they notice.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 5:44:55 PM

djscribbles said:
I believe that the 670 is within a few % of the 680's performance. Unless you don't mind paying an extra 100$ for 3% or 4% more power (and another extra 100 if you SLI later) the 670 is really the best choice.


Yes i read that too & that slightly overclocking 670 brings it to 680 performance, picking a DirectCUII model takes 3 pcie slots compared to reference or 670 (2 slots) so ample venting for more O.C over that 5-10% gap.

Unless I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

P.S This forum helped me a lot over the years i learned many things but first time making an account & posting.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 6:07:35 PM

As far as the difference between 60 and 120 fps goes, the human eye can perceive a difference between a moving image at 60 fps and one at 120 fps.

The misconception that the eye cannot see past 60 fps comes from the old CRT days. With a CRT displaying a static image such as the desktop, a refresh rate below 60 fps would introduce a perceivable 'flicker' that caused eyestrain, because the eye would see the gaps between refreshes where the pixels were black. Going over 60 FPS prevents that flicker from being perceived.

In the past I've been of the same opinion that >60fps doesn't matter, however some research and some experimentation have both shown that to be absolutely false. The human eye is not equatable to a camera, it doesn't have an operating frame-rate, and there isn't a specific frame-rate that is faster than than eye can see; images all get blended together by the eye/brain and a higher frame-rate makes for animation that absolutely does appear noticeably smoother.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 6:09:56 PM

cbrunnem said:
im going to call BS on you playing BF3 at ultra at 90fps. either thats max fps or thats single player and either way thats a stretch.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/510?vs=598

btw most humans cant tell the difference between a CONSTANT 60 and 120 fps. its the changes in fps they notice.


Well, my 670 boosts to over 1300. That's alot. Also, we all know that benchmarks are perfectly indicative of real life performance and that no users ever win the silicon lottery and get parts that over perform... oh wait. Also, what CPU did they use for that test? I have a 3570k clocked at 4.6 Ghz, that undoubtedly helps my fps in Battlefield multiplayer. But thanks for calling me a liar on the internet just because a benchmark has different results. Oh and max fps will hit about 120 fps, usually indoors.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 6:26:28 PM

@ BigMack70

Thank u very much u said everything that was going through my head.

Yes I understand that i would hit a brick wall at some point with some games due to fps caps or tech limits, but thanks again I'm glad it cleared up between SLI models.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 6:34:37 PM

djscribbles said:
I currently have a i7-2700k (no OC), a 7870 Ref, with 16GB ram. I run an S23a750d with tridef for 3d. I was just a bit shy of full FPS in skyrim on ultra in 3d 1080p (around 100-110 fps IIRC), and a little closer (about 115fps IIRC) in 2d mode. Other less taxing games have run quite smoothly, I haven't mucked with BF3 or Crysis 2, but I would expect those maybe on the shortlist of more taxing games than skyrim.

I have heard that tridef isn't as efficient as Nvidia, but I don't know that for sure. I rather wish I had gone with a 7950 or 7970 when I purchased, but they were more expensive than I wanted to pay.

I would expect a 670 would still be your best buy, as most of what I've heard put it only slightly behind the 680 in performance (but 100$ cheaper). Plan to SLI another 670 in the future though if you want to keep your settings at max with future titles.

The PSU you've chosen is more than enough to run 2x670s in SLI, and should have more than enough headroom for some solid overclocks.


Are you doubling your 3D FPS, because 3D at 1080p on a 120hz monitor is not possibly able to show more than 60 FPS (60 fps per eye)? I'm also curious how crossfire works with 3D. A year ago it didn't work, but I did recall seeing rumors of it being added several months back. What's your experience with it?

I have a 3D Vision setup with 680's, which has supported SLI a while, but I do believe AMD added that too. I chose 3D Vision's software because it is just easier to use and generally slightly better supported.

With two 680's, I do get max fps in Skyrim (60 in 3D). I'm not sure what it is in 2D, as I use a hack to fix the water problems, which unfortunately doesn't work on AMD (I assume you can confirm). This hack prevents MSI from showing my FPS, but I did use fraps in 3D to test, and was at a constant 60 FPS which probably means I'd get 120 fps in 2D or close to it. With a single card, I was getting choppy play in 3D, and definitely lower FPS in 2D.

As far as the recognition of high fps goes. The most noticeable change isn't so much visual, at least for me. The biggest improvement of 120hz is that latency is dropped and my actions feel much more responsive. This reduces motion sickness issues for me. After getting past 80-90 fps, I no longer feel motion sickness.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 6:39:18 PM

BigMack70 said:
... you should go buy a 120 Hz monitor, put it next to a 60 Hz monitor, and drag some windows around on the desktop. You tell me if you can see a difference.


I had always been a skeptic of 120Hz. I got a 3d monitor (for 3d), while I was doing some benchmarking to try to figure out how much overhead tridef imposed I ran 2d mode and 3d mode back to back; I was pretty shocked at how apparent the difference is between 60 and 120 FPS, it's not even subtle...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 6:42:38 PM

I agree with BigMack70 on this.
Also your minimum fps needs be at least above 60 fps(i.e. 30 fps in 2D) to prevent lag.
670 SLi seems to be the best option from my point of view,but if you want to keep some premium looks you can go for 690,but still it costs insanely high.
Or you may also try buying two 4gb variants of 670s from evga,see here-

http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=04G-P4-267...

The extra vram might come handy when running current dx11 games in 3D.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 7:10:08 PM

Anik8 said:
The extra vram might come handy when running current dx11 games in 3D.


I kinda doubt that, if he were multimonitor gaming, yes the vram would probably help (in a multi gpu setup, where RAM was the bottleneck). However 3d is just rending in 2d with a shifting viewport and at a higher rate.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 7:52:04 PM

djscribbles said:
The misconception that the eye cannot see past 60 fps comes from the old CRT days. With a CRT displaying a static image such as the desktop, a refresh rate below 60 fps would introduce a perceivable 'flicker' that caused eyestrain, because the eye would see the gaps between refreshes where the pixels were black. Going over 60 FPS prevents that flicker from being perceived.

TVs have 60i refresh and almost nobody is complaining about flicker on those.

The biggest problems with 60Hz computer CRTs is the much shorter fade time on computer displays than TVs to avoid distracting trails when windows, pointers, etc. are moved around and 'beating' phenomenon between the CRT's 60Hz refresh and artificial lighting which makes the CRT's flicker seem much worse than it would otherwise be.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 8:21:55 PM

The problem is that a good 120Hz monitor costs a lot, its ridiculous to pay over $400 for a TN panel. For that money you can buy a good IPS monitor with low lag. If 120Hz is a must and I can tell you that it makes a difference, you will need to run SLI to maximize the benefits. I cant tell the difference between 90 fps and 120fps they both look a lot smoother on a 120Hz than on a 60HZ.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 9:08:10 PM

Ok to make things clear & more simple if possible,

120hz talk and non believers... get out stop wasting my time this thread is not for u.

Appreciate the monitor suggestions but as mentioned at the beginning Ive finalized the rig not here for 2nd thoughts chose that monitor bundled with nvidia 3d vision 2.0 & 120hz but yes mainly 120hz so talk graphic card performance & fps only.

Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier but i do suffer from this too along with eyestrain and headaches:
bystander said:
This reduces motion sickness issues for me. After getting past 80-90 fps, I no longer feel motion sickness.


Keep it within the thread's main context please.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 9:28:57 PM

InvalidError said:
TVs have 60i refresh and almost nobody is complaining about flicker on those.

The biggest problems with 60Hz computer CRTs is the much shorter fade time on computer displays than TVs to avoid distracting trails when windows, pointers, etc. are moved around and 'beating' phenomenon between the CRT's 60Hz refresh and artificial lighting which makes the CRT's flicker seem much worse than it would otherwise be.


There is no flicker on LCD/LED/Plasma TV's. Whether or not they interleave or not. Those TV types are solid state, which is why you never see flickering. CRT's pulse the image to the screen, which is why 60hz was hard on the eyes. With the pulses, your eyes picked up on the moments of black. I found it was imperative to have at least 75hz on CRT's for this reason.

Anyways, as I said before, the biggest bonus to 120hz displays is latency. With the monitor updating the screen twice as often, even when you are at 60 FPS, the latency is slightly less, and as you go up, it gets better and better. I feel a difference up to 90 FPS. Afterwards it does improve, but it has diminishing returns. That said, after getting used to 120hz, I can also see slight choppy game play at 60hz/FPS now, where I didn't before.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 9:31:20 PM

tp015657 said:
Ok to make things clear & more simple if possible,

120hz talk and non believers... get out stop wasting my time this thread is not for u.

Appreciate the monitor suggestions but as mentioned at the beginning Ive finalized the rig not here for 2nd thoughts chose that monitor bundled with nvidia 3d vision 2.0 & 120hz but yes mainly 120hz so talk graphic card performance & fps only.

Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier but i do suffer from this too along with eyestrain and headaches:


In terms of performance. A single 680 requires you to lower settings on many games to get to the 90 FPS mark. In games like Crysis, Metro 2033, The Witcher and such, I'd play at high to get over 80-90 FPS. With two in SLI, I can play at ultra and get over 90 FPS.

Getting to 120 FPS also requires a very fast CPU, and some games will not allow it, regardless of how fast your GPU's are.
Score
0
September 25, 2012 9:43:50 PM

bystander said:
In terms of performance. A single 680 requires you to lower settings on many games to get to the 90 FPS mark. In games like Crysis, Metro 2033, The Witcher and such, I'd play at high to get over 80-90 FPS. With two in SLI, I can play at ultra and get over 90 FPS.

Getting to 120 FPS also requires a very fast CPU, and some games will not allow it, regardless of how fast your GPU's are.



Yes as i mentioned before i may hit a brick wall eventually when it comes to fps cap as for CPU it will be O.C i will go with anything as long as i break that 60hz/fps cycle been suffering too long with it, any higher fps as much as i can get will help while still maintaining all the eye candy. so SLI is the solution but between 670 or 680 or single 690 i need more info from the people that experienced it 1st hand before deciding.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 9:46:23 PM

There is very little performance difference between a 670 and 680 if OC'ed to the same clocks. As a result, I'd save the money and go with 670's. As of now, 2GB's is also more than enough for anything at 1080p or 3D Vision. It's possible it'll change, but I doubt it will any time soon.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2012 9:53:07 PM

bystander said:
There is no flicker on LCD/LED/Plasma TV's.

The DCB post I was replying to was about CRTs, not LCDs.
Score
0
September 26, 2012 9:52:05 AM

What im trying to find out now is 690 performance compared to SLI 670 when it comes to 2D & 3D gaming fps performance wise.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 10:53:11 AM

From what I've read, a 690 is just slightly less powerful than 2x680 in sli (due to having share a single PCIE slot bandwidth).

However, a 690 does give you the option to add another 680/690 sometime in the future. Going for SLI 670's is the end of the road.

I would keep this at the heart of your decision; are you going to be happy with 2 670s for 600 dollars, or is the extra 400$ on a 690 worth the piece of mind that you have an upgrade option available later? (also a bigger PSU may be needed if you add in a 3rd/4th gpu)
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 1:29:20 PM

670 SLI does have an upgrade path. You can go 3 way SLI, though that does introduce more noise and heat to the equation.
Score
0

Best solution

September 26, 2012 3:17:07 PM

I have 2 Asus 670s in SLI and BF3 doesn't always run at 120 in multi player if I max the settings out. However, this is directly related to how many guys are on the server. If I go into an empty server then my machine runs 120 consistently regardless of the settings. Still never goes below 90 fps at the very lowest, and 90% of the time it never drops below 111 or so.

These are non-top versions. I have heard that you can OC them just as well. I haven't OC'd them yet as I haven't really had a need to, everything performs so well anyway!

Keep in mind that the SLI = extra babysitting because of the higher temps. You sound like you know what you are doing in this area though ;)  For me the card in the 1st slot is always about 5c hotter than the bottom one. I have about 7 fans in my box though, so air cooling works fine for me. Neither card ever gets hotter than 70-71 degrees, even in the most demanding situations.
Share
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 4:12:48 PM

BigMack70 said:
Please show me where I can get a pair of 670s for $600 :lol:  :heink: 

Anyways, 670 SLI is just 3% or so slower than a 690:
The reason to spend the $200 extra on a 690 compared to 670 SLI is to reduce temps/noise/physical space requirements - not to have an upgrade path.


Hah, sorry, posting too early in the morning :)  off by 100$ on the price of the 670 and ignored the op's mobo being quad-sli capable.

Score
0
September 28, 2012 12:19:30 AM

Best answer selected by tp015657.
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 6:07:54 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!