Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 260 @ 1080p vs GTX 670 @ 1440p

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 28, 2012 10:16:42 PM

Will the GTX 670 at 1440p perform more than 2x better than a GTX 260 at 1080p in most games?
So, for exaple if I get 25fps in Skyrim now at 1080p will I get more than 50fps with a GTX 670 at 1440p?
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 10:53:49 PM

The Geforce GTX 670 is quite a bit (about 178%) faster with regards to AF than the GeForce GTX 260.The Geforce GTX 670 will be a lot (more or less 82%) faster with regards to FSAA than the GeForce GTX 260, and also capable of handling higher screen resolutions without losing too much performance.Look here comparing to a 660 ti which is roughly 20% weaker than a gtx 670

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Related resources
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 28, 2012 11:44:12 PM

hasten said:
IDK if I'd go as far to say that 670 is "way stronger" than a 660 ti...
Well roughly 20% stronger guess it depends on what one considers "way stronger" ;) 
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 2:36:32 AM

SKYRIM:
The GTX670 can play Skyrim at 60FPS @1920x1080, almost MAX QUALITY even with the OFFICIAL HD TEXTURE PACK. You will get a few dips below 60FPS unless you tweak VERY SLIGHTLY. I'm estimating because I have a GTX680 (ASUS TOP) which is slightly better. You'll get NO DROPS without the HD texture pack but the pack is worth it.

This assumes your CPU isn't a bottleneck (ideally an i5-750 or better).

*This is the best GTX670 and performs equal to a stock 680. Performance is between 8 and 13% better than a stock 670.
http://ca.asus.com/en/Graphics_Cards/NVIDIA_Series/GTX6...

The above card is also out of stock most places and more EXPENSIVE ($450 or so) than most.

**If you have the money, this is the card I own and (arguably) the best single-GPU card available:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The above card rocks and for me it's worth every penny. The only disadvantage aside from price is the THREE SLOTS but that doesn't matter to me. I didn't need the other slots. It is heavy, but the backplate prevents bending and the weight is transferred to the rear mount.

Here's a review:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 2:58:52 AM

*Many 670/680 cards come with a Borderlands 2 ($60 value) coupon.

**Also, that Asus 680 TOP I linked will perform up to 22% better than a stock 670. It will vary by the game.
September 29, 2012 7:41:21 AM

Alright, thanks for the responses. I am still set on getting the Asus Direct CUII 670 however I am not sure yet about 1440p as I want my games to run smoothly, even with tons of mods (in Skyrim).
Please correct me if I am wrong, but from those graphs I estimate the following fps (with the same game and settings, etc):
1080p, GTX 260 = 20 fps
1440p, GTX 670 (OC) = 60 fps

Is that about correct?
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 4:08:06 PM

Uh, what the heck is "1440p" ?

1080p refers to 1920x1080. Perhaps you mean "900p" as in 1440x900?

So 1080p would be slightly more demanding than 900p. Anyway, go ahead and get the GTX670, you can't go wrong.

*The goal for gaming IMO is to maintain a stable frame rate. With the GTX670 get the official HD Texture Pack, but then monitor your frame rate with FRAPS for a while to see if it dips below 60FPS very often and tweak it so that is a rare occurrence.

I also strongly recommend you use Adaptive VSYNC (NVidia control panel) for SKYRIM.
September 29, 2012 4:15:34 PM

photonboy said:
Uh, what the heck is "1440p" ?

1080p refers to 1920x1080. Perhaps you mean "900p" as in 1440x900?

So 1080p would be slightly more demanding than 900p. Anyway, go ahead and get the GTX670, you can't go wrong.

*The goal for gaming IMO is to maintain a stable frame rate. With the GTX670 get the official HD Texture Pack, but then monitor your frame rate with FRAPS for a while to see if it dips below 60FPS very often and tweak it so that is a rare occurrence.

I also strongly recommend you use Adaptive VSYNC (NVidia control panel) for SKYRIM.


1440p is 2560x1440 :) 
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 4:17:09 PM

**IGNORE MY ABOVE POST**

I realize now you are talking about 2560x1440. Duh, my screen is this resolution so I SHOULD have noticed.

*I strongly recommend you play Skyrim at 1920x1080. The difference in quality is incredibly miniscule however 2560x1440 takes a signficant hit.

In fact, at 2560x1440 with MODS you're frame rate is probably going to be somewhere between 30 and 45FPS.

Do yourself a favour and:
1) play at 1920x1080
2) monitor with FRAPS and tweak quality settings to achieve 60FPS most of the time, and
3) enable Adaptive VSYNC in the NVidia Control Panel

(there are a few games that look better at 2560x1440 and still run great such as Diablo 3. )
a b U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 4:20:56 PM

photonboy said:
**IGNORE MY ABOVE POST**

I realize now you are talking about 2560x1440. Duh, my screen is this resolution so I SHOULD have noticed.

*I strongly recommend you play Skyrim at 1920x1080. The difference in quality is incredibly miniscule however 2560x1440 takes a signficant hit.

In fact, at 2560x1440 with MODS you're frame rate is probably going to be somewhere between 30 and 45FPS.

Do yourself a favour and:
1) play at 1920x1080
2) monitor with FRAPS and tweak quality settings to achieve 60FPS most of the time, and
3) enable Adaptive VSYNC in the NVidia Control Panel

(there are a few games that look better at 2560x1440 and still run great such as Diablo 3. )



I agree 1440p is nice but 1080p isnt played out and pretty much is the standard
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 29, 2012 5:02:53 PM

determinologyz said:
I agree 1440p is nice but 1080p isnt played out and pretty much is the standard


And as I mention above, there's a performance hit with 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 that simply doesn't justify the very, very small difference in quality for most games with a few exceptions if your hardware handles it (mostly top-down games like Diablo 3 with smaller text).
September 29, 2012 5:45:41 PM

photonboy said:
And as I mention above, there's a performance hit with 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 that simply doesn't justify the very, very small difference in quality for most games with a few exceptions if your hardware handles it (mostly top-down games like Diablo 3 with smaller text).


What causes Skyrim to barely look better at 1440p? A limit in texture sizes??
And if I do stick to 1080p, will a GTX 660 Ti be sufficient? I read everywhere it has severe bandwidth limitations.
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 11:48:15 AM

olivierhacking said:
What causes Skyrim to barely look better at 1440p? A limit in texture sizes??
And if I do stick to 1080p, will a GTX 660 Ti be sufficient? I read everywhere it has severe bandwidth limitations.


Texture quality is probably the main reason.
You can EASILY compare the quality difference yourself as well as monitor FRAPS to see the difference in frame rates.

A GTX660Ti can play Skyrim nicely, but you will have to adjust the quality settings slightly if you want to keep a solid frame rate. My HD5870 1GB card could play Skyrim at 60FPS without the HD texture pack with just a few tweaks.

*It boils down to the games you play how important the graphics card is, but consider the following:

a) let's say you buy the GTX680 TOP ASUS card for $540
b) That's $240 more than a GTX660Ti or roughly twice as much
c) let's assume you keep the GTX680 three years
d) now ADD UP how much money you spend in three years on GAMES, PC HARDWARE, and INTERNET

My number came to about $3000.

So in otherwords, to UPGRADE to a much better card and have a better gaming experience, I just had to increase my PC GAMING BUDGET by only 8%!!
a c 154 U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 11:53:53 AM

VRAM:
I monitored the VIDEO RAM to see how much vanilla Skyrim uses, at most (official HD Texture Pack only). It comes to 1.5GB!

System RAM usage peaks at 1.7GB for the game itself. Just FYI.
September 30, 2012 12:39:34 PM

photonboy said:
VRAM:
I monitored the VIDEO RAM to see how much vanilla Skyrim uses, at most (official HD Texture Pack only). It comes to 1.5GB!

System RAM usage peaks at 1.7GB for the game itself. Just FYI.


Well, thanks for the helpful information! I currently play mainly Guild Wars 2, Skyrim, BF3, Crysis 2 and soon GRID 2 and Crysis 3 :) 
But I think I can overclock the GTX 660Ti to 670 performance. And for 1080p, its more than enough.
I was just worried about what you said regarding textures looking 'bad' on 1440p. When comparing the 1440p monitor side by side to 1080p, is there a significant difference?
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2012 2:04:05 PM

photonboy said:
Texture quality is probably the main reason.
You can EASILY compare the quality difference yourself as well as monitor FRAPS to see the difference in frame rates.

A GTX660Ti can play Skyrim nicely, but you will have to adjust the quality settings slightly if you want to keep a solid frame rate. My HD5870 1GB card could play Skyrim at 60FPS without the HD texture pack with just a few tweaks.

*It boils down to the games you play how important the graphics card is, but consider the following:

a) let's say you buy the GTX680 TOP ASUS card for $540
b) That's $240 more than a GTX660Ti or roughly twice as much
c) let's assume you keep the GTX680 three years
d) now ADD UP how much money you spend in three years on GAMES, PC HARDWARE, and INTERNET

My number came to about $3000.

So in otherwords, to UPGRADE to a much better card and have a better gaming experience, I just had to increase my PC GAMING BUDGET by only 8%!!


I cant see my self going all out on a gpu like that even tho the 680 is a beast...
a c 154 U Graphics card
October 8, 2012 11:57:18 PM

olivierhacking said:
Well, thanks for the helpful information! I currently play mainly Guild Wars 2, Skyrim, BF3, Crysis 2 and soon GRID 2 and Crysis 3 :) 
But I think I can overclock the GTX 660Ti to 670 performance. And for 1080p, its more than enough.
I was just worried about what you said regarding textures looking 'bad' on 1440p. When comparing the 1440p monitor side by side to 1080p, is there a significant difference?


I didn't say 1440p looks bad, what I said was there's a big hit in the frame rate with almost no visual advantage.

If you could enable 1440p and never drop below 60FPS it would be fine to use 2560x1440. However, it's always a trade-off between quality and frame rate.

I run Diablo 3 at 2560x1440, everything MAX and 60FPS.

I run SKYRIM at 1920x1080, everything MAX plus HD texture pack and 60FPS.

If I ran SKYRIM at 2560x1440 I'd be dropping below 60FPS and the ONLY thing that would look better would be the HUD elements. They'd be SLIGHTLY sharper.

*I can verify plenty of games like BF3, SKYRIM, Witcher 2 etc that need a GTX680 for the best quality. I can ALMOST run Witcher 2 at max quality (no ubersampling) and SKYRIM is max but barely. BF3 is ALMOST max.

**FYI, BF3 has an AA setting (deferred?) that makes everything look horribly foggy. Just keep in mind when tweaking and disable that.
!