Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx 670 and 2550 x 1440 monitor? I need help. :D

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 12, 2012 12:12:39 AM

Hey everyone, I plan to use a gtx 670 to power a Yamakasi Catleap 2550 x 1440... Will that work? How well? Like bf3 @ max settings? Please note I have not purchased the card OR the monitor so it's the prime time to guide me! I feel like I could take gaming to the next level by going from a Gtx 570 W/ a 1080p monitor to this new setup. Please post and respond I'm very curious about this! And how big of a leap is it from 1080p to 1440p? Really any advice is appreciated I've never ventured into this expensive level of gaming so... I'm very wary and don't want to waste money but DO want an awesome gaming experience. Thanks :D 
October 12, 2012 12:18:00 AM

And remember let me know the differences between 1080p and 1440p... Is it incredibly way more totally awesome? Or just a little better? And btw if I do buy the monitor I want to try to do the 120hz hack on it..
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:18:03 AM

ArcticWonder said:
Hey everyone, I plan to use a gtx 670 to power a Yamakasi Catleap 2550 x 1440... Will that work? How well? Like bf3 @ max settings? Please note I have not purchased the card OR the monitor so it's the prime time to guide me! I feel like I could take gaming to the next level by going from a Gtx 570 W/ a 1080p monitor to this new setup. Please post and respond I'm very curious about this! And how big of a leap is it from 1080p to 1440p? Really any advice is appreciated I've never ventured into this expensive level of gaming so... I'm very wary and don't want to waste money but DO want an awesome gaming experience. Thanks :D 



with 1440p you could run into the Vram wall with 2GB GTX 670 with high AA settings(like 8X, 2X might be fine), since you haven't bought the card yet I recommend getting a HD7970 or HD 7950 as both come with 3GB of Vram.

1440p & IPS are both awesome sauce, however with FPS games like Battlefield 3 you might be better off with a TN 120Hz monitor since they only have 2ms input delay as oppose to 6ms+ with IPS panels so you get less ghosting.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 12, 2012 12:21:26 AM

I'd recommend the 7970 since it can overclock better (which you'll most likely want to do) and you can run higher AA with a lower performance hit (compared to the 670).
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 12:24:33 AM

sherlockwing said:
with 1440p you could run into the Vram wall with 2GB GTX 670 with high AA settings(like 8X, 2X might be fine), since you haven't bought the card yet I recommend getting a HD7970 or HD 7950 as both come with 3GB of Vram.

1440p & IPS are both awesome sauce, however with FPS games like Battlefield 3 you might be better off with a TN 120Hz monitor since they only have 2ms input delay as oppose to 6ms+ with IPS panels so you get less ghosting.


There is no 2GB wall with any playable setting on a single 670, even with 5760x1080. The only time the 2GB become a wall is when you have 2-3 GTX 670's in SLI on 5760x1080 with AA. The reason it takes 2-3 in SLI before it can become an issue is until that point, on a 5760x1080 monitor setup, a single 670 does not have enough power to turn up the setting high enough that the Vram becomes a limitation.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:33:21 AM

I'm probably not going to get an AMD card. And no, it's not because I hate AMD, I have an 1100t... But I like the idea of physX and I've seen demos for Borderlands 2 wit hand without physX and there is a noticeable difference.. If the gtx 670 plays games @ 1440p with like... 60 fps I'd be happy
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:34:28 AM

Also, I've heard that with 1440p and only one monitor 2gb won't matter at all compared to 4gb version..
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:37:42 AM

bystander said:
There is no 2GB wall with any playable setting on a single 670, even with 5760x1080. The only time the 2GB become a wall is when you have 2-3 GTX 670's in SLI on 5760x1080 with AA. The reason it takes 2-3 in SLI before it can become an issue is until that point, on a 5760x1080 monitor setup, a single 670 does not have enough power to turn up the setting high enough that the Vram becomes a limitation.





Data doesn't lie, anything above 1080p you are better off with AMD's 3GB Vram and superior bus speed. Not to mention 7900 series have more overclock headroom due to unlocked voltage.
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 12:41:53 AM

sherlockwing said:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/images/bf3_2560_1600.gifhttp://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/images/bf3_5760_1080.gif

Data doesn't lie, anything above 1080p you are better off with AMD's 3GB Vram and superior bus speed. Not to mention 7900 series overclocks much better due to unlocked voltage.


Your charts did not show any wall at all. It showed the 670 performing normal on both charts. It did show the 7970 GHz edition performed quite well, but when you OC the 670 to a GHz, it will perform almost as high (about the same difference as the non-GHz 7970 to the non OC'ed 670).

The only thing holding back performance at that resolution is bandwidth, and the loss in performance is quite small.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:43:55 AM

bystander said:
Your charts did not show any wall at all. It showed the 670 performing normal on both charts. It did show the 7970 GHz edition performed quite well, but when you OC the 670 to a GHz, it will perform almost as high (about the same difference as the non-GHz 7970 to the non OC'ed 670).

The only thing holding back performance at that resolution is bandwidth, and the loss in performance is quite small.



Look at it again:


Instead of looking at Ghz, look at 7970 vs 670.

1920X1200 4X AA
GTX 670: 65.9 FPS > HD7970 64.4 FPS

2560X1600 4X AA
HD 7970 42 FPS > GTX 670 40.4 FPS

Notice how the table turned on 670 when the resolution went from 1200p to 1600p?
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:46:43 AM

bystander said:
Yes, I'm looking. There is a 1-2 FPS difference. How is that a wall?


It is that you are paying the same for less FPS, with 8X AA the gap will be even bigger. Maybe there isn't a wall, but HD 7900 series performs much better at high AA & high Resolution.

m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 12:51:55 AM

sherlockwing said:
It is that you are paying the same for less FPS, with 8X AA the gap will be even bigger.


Omg, 1-2 FPS, the game is unplayable.

Seriously, he already mentioned he wanted Nvidia for PhysX. If he has PhysX games he wants to play, then he should get an Nvidia card. So what if he loses a couple FPS. That is nothing.

You also should realize the vram size would not make up any of the FPS. In fact, the 4gb cards either perform the same, or 1-2 FPS slower. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_...

m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:54:28 AM

bystander said:
Omg, 1-2 FPS, the game is unplayable.

Seriously, he already mentioned he wanted Nvidia for PhysX. If he has PhysX games he wants to play, then he should get an Nvidia card. So what if he loses a couple FPS. That is nothing.

You also should realize the vram size would not make up any of the FPS. In fact, the 4gb cards either perform the same, or 1-2 FPS slower. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_...



Do ditch your fanboy hat and consider:

HD 7970 pulls ahead of GTX 670 on higher than 1200p resolution.

These benches are run at stock clock rates, HD7970 price is not much higher than 670 while 7950 prices are $70 lower at least:

HD 7970 series comes with a 915 stock clock and can be overclocked to 1150-1200 on average(check OCN)-> 25%-31% Overclock

GTX 670 comes with a 980 boost clock at least (the average kepler boost is another 90 higher than that), so they run these Benchmarks at about 1050 Mhz clock minmum, your chance to get a 1300mhz GTX 670 is about 50/50 depend on silicon luck & thermal throttling and that's only a 21% Overclock.

So when Overclocked), the edge to 7970 will be larger and OCed 7950s will reach or surpass 670 in performance while costing much less.

In Conclusion, GTX670 is not the optimal price/performance GPU for 1440p gaming with high AA.


But if you really need PhysX, GTX 670 will be just fine.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:58:47 AM

He wants PhysX. He believe it is noticeable enough to only consider NVidia GPU. How can you not get this through your head?

Yes I do prefer the 7970 over the 670 but I understand what he wants thus I'm not arguing like an idiot like you are.
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 12:59:06 AM

sherlockwing said:
Do ditch your fanboy hat and consider:

These benches are run at stock clock rates:

HD 7970 series comes with a 915 stock clock and can be overclocked to 1150-1200 on average(check OCN)-> 25%-31% Overclock

GTX 670 comes with a 980 stock boost(the average kepler boost is another 90 higher than that), so they run these Benchmarks at about 1050 Mhz clock minmum, your chance to get a 1300mhz GTX 670 is about 50/50 depend on silicon luck & thermal throttling and that's only a 21% Overclock.

So when Overclocked), the edge to 7970 will be larger and OCed 7950s will reach or surpass 670 in performance while costing much less.

In Conclusion, GTX670 is not the optimal price/performance GPU for 1440p gaming with high AA.

You could also buy a cheap old Nivida GPU to run PhysX only while running your HD7950/70, it is not rocket science.


Dude, he wants PhysX. I don't care about which brand he uses. You called the 2GB of vram as a limitation, which I clearly showed it isn't, even at 5760x1080. The only person being a fanboy is yourself.

If he didn't want PhysX, you'd still be wrong about 2GB running into a wall at 2560x1440, but the 7970 would be a good choice, but that is not what he asked for.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 12:59:18 AM

andrewcarr said:
He wants PhysX. He believe it is noticeable enough to only consider NVidia GPU. How can you not get this through your head?



You could buy a 9800 GTX for dirt cheap and have it run PhysX only, how could you not comprehend that?

bystander said:
Dude, he wants PhysX. I don't care about which brand he uses. You called the 2GB of vram as a limitation, which I clearly showed it isn't, even at 5760x1080. The only person being a fanboy is yourself.




Look at Sig, see GTX 670 in SLI-> Jokes on you.



:heink: 
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:00:20 AM

Unless you use modded drivers you can't run a PhysX only GPU with any AMD main card.

Theirs a reason you don't yet have any medals in this section, you just don't know everything. For that matter neither do I, but I don't argue a failing point.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:03:01 AM

andrewcarr said:
Unless you use modded drivers you can't run a PhysX only GPU with any AMD main card.



Use it then, if you want Phys X so bad you use a 2GB card on 1440p resolution with a gimped BUS.
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 1:03:20 AM

sherlockwing said:
You could buy a 9800 GTX for dirt cheap and have it run PhysX only, how could you not comprehend that?


You never presented that as an option and a 9800gt isn't enough power for many games that use GPU accelerated PhysX (it probably would be enough for Borderlands 2, however). You also need a hack to make it work, and it still costs about $60 added to the cost.

If you want to insult people for not comprehending something, you need to first have written something about it first.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:05:45 AM

Hey everyone, I plan to use a gtx 670 to power a Yamakasi Catleap 2550 x 1440... Will that work? How well? Like bf3 @ max settings? Please note I have not purchased the card OR the monitor so it's the prime time to guide me! I feel like I could take gaming to the next level by going from a Gtx 570 W/ a 1080p monitor to this new setup. Please post and respond I'm very curious about this! And how big of a leap is it from 1080p to 1440p? Really any advice is appreciated I've never ventured into this expensive level of gaming so... I'm very wary and don't want to waste money but DO want an awesome gaming experience. Thanks :Dp said:
Hey everyone, I plan to use a gtx 670 to power a Yamakasi Catleap 2550 x 1440... Will that work? How well? Like bf3 @ max settings? Please note I have not purchased the card OR the monitor so it's the prime time to guide me! I feel like I could take gaming to the next level by going from a Gtx 570 W/ a 1080p monitor to this new setup. Please post and respond I'm very curious about this! And how big of a leap is it from 1080p to 1440p? Really any advice is appreciated I've never ventured into this expensive level of gaming so... I'm very wary and don't want to waste money but DO want an awesome gaming experience. Thanks :D p


I don't see " PhysX" here.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:12:06 AM

ArcticWonder said:
And remember let me know the differences between 1080p and 1440p... Is it incredibly way more totally awesome? Or just a little better? And btw if I do buy the monitor I want to try to do the 120hz hack on it..




Didn't see he really needed PhysX, in that case 670 will be perfectly fine.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:12:23 AM

ArcticWonder said:
I'm probably not going to get an AMD card. And no, it's not because I hate AMD, I have an 1100t... But I like the idea of physX and I've seen demos for Borderlands 2 wit hand without physX and there is a noticeable difference.. If the gtx 670 plays games @ 1440p with like... 60 fps I'd be happy

But it does right here. :lol: 

The added cost of a dedicated PhysX card doesn't make it worth his time for all the issues you'll run into for an extra few FPS.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 1:12:52 AM

1-2 fps could even be a small enough difference to most certainly fall within testing anomalies or a small margin of error. He said he wanted physx in the 6th post down.

I don't see why you are getting so hostile over this, so you were wrong. So what? And though I have no experience with the modded drivers so if I'm wrong here please excuse my lack of knowledge. Doesn't the modded drivers actually reduce performance? Not to mention if you get a physx card thats to slow it will have to wait on the physx to get done processing the information before they can be drawn to the screen by the main gpu thus lowering your overall fps.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:13:53 AM

sherlockwing said:
Didn't see he really needed PhysX, in that case 670 will be perfectly fine.


andrewcarr said:
But it does right here. :lol: 

The added cost of a dedicated PhysX card doesn't make it worth his time for all the issues you'll run into for an extra few FPS.


I did say if he needs PhysX then 670 will be fine.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:22:43 AM

andrewcarr said:
Okay, then give up there. Stop arguing for what he said he doesn't want.

I'd recommend this GPU if you don't want to overclock ever.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Or one of these if you do want to overclock.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



Would only recommend the Gigabyte WF3(the last one, N670-OC-2GD) card, runs amazing at stock with 0 need for Overclock(mine boosted to 1150Mhz out of the box andthat's fairly average), the Trifan cooler keeps it very cool in at all loads and the auto fan never gets loud, you also get Gigabyte's Ultra Durable VGA quality( 2 Oz of Copper in the PCB), & 6+8 pin power delivery and phase VRM as Gigabyte's 680 models.

The only other 670 I'd recommend at this point would be the MSI PE models but they have been busted for PWM overvolting and might be undergoing a design change to reduce the Kepler Boost they give you.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:25:04 AM

I'm not saying it's bad stock. I'm just saying it can be even better.

Stop believing in all the gimmicks that the manufacture posts on their website.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:27:53 AM

andrewcarr said:
I'm not saying it's bad stock. I'm just saying it can be even better.

Stop believing in all the gimmicks that the manufacture posts on their website.



I see that point. Also the Windforce 3 fan model is the longest 670 model out there, it is 11" long and might have issue fitting in some cases if you can't remove the top hard drive cage.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:30:51 AM

andrewcarr said:
Okay, then give up there. Stop arguing for what he said he doesn't want.

I'd recommend this GPU if you don't want to overclock ever.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Or one of these if you do want to overclock.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I've heard the gtx 670 sucks at overclocking, so I might just go with a stock cooler to save some cash.. I'm sorry about the excluding AMD cards, it's really not a prejudice, I'm just basing it off of a good experience with Nvidia GPU's and this video->http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/pc-games/bord... .... Also, I honestly thought I'd get more of an upgrade from a gtx 570 to the 670.. But it looks like it's not that big of a leap despite the esteemed reputation...Also I have only 1 pci x 16 2.0 slot so no SLI or dedicated PhysX or anything of the sort. I originally had thought of buying a gtx 590 but i was talked out of it by people on T.H.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:32:37 AM

sherlockwing said:
I see that point. Also the Windforce 3 fan model is the longest 670 model out there, it is 11" long and might have issue fitting in some cases if you can't remove the top hard drive cage.

I can fit any card, no worries there.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:38:36 AM

Don't get the 590 it's overpriced and will be overkill at that resolution. The 680 could be a consideration but still it isn't that much better and it's better to save the $70 and get an good cooler on the 670 to help with the overclock. They are okay overclockers but not nearly as good as the 7970. I'd recommend the Gigabyte windforce 3.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:43:17 AM

Does anybody here have data for a gtx 670 running bf3 @ 2550 x 1440 completely maxed? I'd like to know what it performs at.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 1:54:55 AM

m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:56:49 AM

Now I'm wondering if this whole idea is even worth it in the first place....
Gtx 670 doesn't seem to be that good
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 1:59:04 AM

Currently the fourth best single GPU card you can buy.

These are above it
680
7970 GHz edition
and the 7970 (although some games go to the 670 but overall the 7970 is better).
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:06:04 AM

*I suggest you SAVE this information. I think it's useful.

I have a U2711 monitor. It's 27" @ 2560x1440. I also have a GTX680 and have extensively tested things.

POINTS:
1. You mention an "overclock" on the monitor. That implies you're looking at one of the cheap Korean screens. STAY. AWAY. The quality of these screens is very poor and the odds of getting dead pixels are very high.

The U2711 from Dell is quite expensive still. If you want a 27", 2560x1440 screens there a couple for about $800 you can research. NCIX has links (there's about three), an Asus, Samsung and another one I think.

2. 2560x1440 and Desktop.
My desktop is 2560x1440 scaled by Windows in the settings by 40% larger which I think is optimum. You'll ALSO want to use CTRL + Mouse Scroll in web pages to adjust the ZOOM LEVEL (usually too small).

3. 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 Gaming:
2560x1440 in most games does NOT look better. There is also a big performance hit of roughly 30% (varies). So I rarely use it. I concentrate on hitting a solid 60FPS with VSYNC (or Adaptive VSYNC) and if necessary tweak the quality settings to achieve 60FPS 90% or greater of the time.

Games that look BETTER tend to be top-down games like Diablo 3. It's the HUD elements that look far better, especially the text may be sharper. I can achieve 60FPS at 2560x1440 easily with my GTX680 (and could on my older HD5870 as well).

**The bottom line is do NOT play a game at 2560x1440 unless you can ALSO run at 60FPS with maximum quality.

Another example of NOT using 2560x1440 is SKYRIM. The ONLY difference would be a very small increase of the HUD sharpness. Even with a GTX680 when I add the HD texture pack, trying to run at 2560x1440 would drop me below 60FPS.

4. PHYSX:
PhysX is a mixed bag. Even with a GTX670/680, many games easily drop below 60FPS with PhysX on so you have to make a choice:
a) run without PhysX at 60FPS
b) run WITH PhysX at 60FPS but drop the game quality
c) run WITH PhysX and high quality but at a LOW FRAME RATE

Personally, I don't think the additional eye candy is worth the sacrifice in most games. Borderlands 2 seems to work quite well and apparently a GTX670 can play High PhysX, Max quality at 1920x1080 and still achieve 60FPS.

**So it's a good idea to run FRAPS while setting up a game and tweaking it.

5. BATMAN ARKHAM CITY:
I thought I'd add this since the game is so popular. It has coding issues, and if you dislike stuttering (who doesn't) then:
a) Disable PHYSX
b) Disable the DX11 features (tessellation and HBAO or whatever).

I've tested Batman AC extensively and the above is the only way it's fun to play the game. The PhysX weather effects cause such drops that you stutter when trying to grapel or glide. No fun.

6. CPU and RAM:
An i5-750 at stock speeds is sufficient for a GTX670/680 for most games. Overclocking it while handle the remaining games AFAIK. The best gaming CPU, IMO to buy today is the i5-3570K. You don't really need to overclock it though. Don't spend any more as a gamer.

The ideal amount of RAM is 8GB (i.e. 1600MHz DDR3) such as 2x4GB for about $40 or so. More will not provide a gamer any benefit.

7. 2GB vs 4GB:
For a single monitor up to 2560x1600, 2GB is plenty. I saw the above argument. There are RARE exceptions such as heavily modded SKYRIM. Keep in mind though that heavily modding SKYRIM also reduces the frame rate. You can easily keep piling on mods with super HD textures but it's better to choose a few, efficient ones.

FYI, Vanilla SKYRIM + Official HD Texture Pack peaks at 1.5GB of VRAM (Video RAM). It can use a card with less but you'd have minor slowdowns while buffering new textures. I wouldn't recommend the HD Texture Pack anyway without better than an HD5870.

8. Which GTX670??
Here's a list of THREE GTX670's as well as the GTX680 that I own and love. I have several games that make full use of this graphics card so if you think it's overkill, think again. (Witcher 2, BF3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Bulletstorm, Total War Shogun 2, Batman AC, Metro 2033 and several others).

To be clear, my ASUS GTX680 TOP card will run all of the above games in better graphics quality than any GTX670 can do. Skyrim is arguable, but since i have dropped below 60FPS and it's not even modded beyond the official HD pack I included it.

Card links:
670's:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71107&vpn=GV-N670OC-2G...

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=72914&vpn=N670%20PE%20...

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71741&vpn=GTX670-DC2T-...

GTX680 ASUS TOP:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71119&vpn=GTX680-DC2T-...

**Awesome REVIEW of Asus 670 TOP**
(the 680 is identical, except about 10% average faster and is a 3-slot card)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Make sure to read the final comment.

SUMMARY:
- avoid cheap Korean 2560x1440 screens
- if buying a 2560x1440 screen get one of the Asus, Samsung or other quality brands for about $800
- 1920x1080 should still be used for most games due to performance hit with minimal quality benefit
- 2560x1440 is recommended for games like Diablo 3 if you can achieve 60FPS, full quality due to the sharper HUD text.
- 2560x1440 needs to be scaled for desktop use (Windows settings)
- GTX670 or GTX680, buy a quality brand with good cooling solution (less noise)
- at $540, the Asus GTX680 TOP card is arguably the best single GPU card. It's simply an awesome card and worth considering.
- at $440, the Asus GTX670 TOP is an excellent card. It can play MOST games at full settings but not all so it really depends on the games you play and your budget.
- PHYSX is a nice feature, but the performance hit can be so huge it's not worth using.
- Finally, I advise you always TWEAK your game to get 60FPS most of the time. VSYNC or Adaptive VSYNC.

Good luck!
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:17:46 AM

photonboy said:
*I suggest you SAVE this information. I think it's useful.

I have a U2711 monitor. It's 27" @ 2560x1440. I also have a GTX680 and have extensively tested things.

POINTS:
1. You mention an "overclock" on the monitor. That implies you're looking at one of the cheap Korean screens. STAY. AWAY. The quality of these screens is very poor and the odds of getting dead pixels are very high.

The U2711 from Dell is quite expensive still. If you want a 27", 2560x1440 screens there a couple for about $800 you can research. NCIX has links (there's about three), an Asus, Samsung and another one I think.

2. 2560x1440 and Desktop.
My desktop is 2560x1440 scaled by Windows in the settings by 40% larger which I think is optimum. You'll ALSO want to use CTRL + Mouse Scroll in web pages to adjust the ZOOM LEVEL (usually too small).

3. 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 Gaming:
2560x1440 in most games does NOT look better. There is also a big performance hit of roughly 30% (varies). So I rarely use it. I concentrate on hitting a solid 60FPS with VSYNC (or Adaptive VSYNC) and if necessary tweak the quality settings to achieve 60FPS 90% or greater of the time.

Games that look BETTER tend to be top-down games like Diablo 3. It's the HUD elements that look far better, especially the text may be sharper. I can achieve 60FPS at 2560x1440 easily with my GTX680 (and could on my older HD5870 as well).

**The bottom line is do NOT play a game at 2560x1440 unless you can ALSO run at 60FPS with maximum quality.

Another example of NOT using 2560x1440 is SKYRIM. The ONLY difference would be a very small increase of the HUD sharpness. Even with a GTX680 when I add the HD texture pack, trying to run at 2560x1440 would drop me below 60FPS.

4. PHYSX:
PhysX is a mixed bag. Even with a GTX670/680, many games easily drop below 60FPS with PhysX on so you have to make a choice:
a) run without PhysX at 60FPS
b) run WITH PhysX at 60FPS but drop the game quality
c) run WITH PhysX and high quality but at a LOW FRAME RATE

Personally, I don't think the additional eye candy is worth the sacrifice in most games. Borderlands 2 seems to work quite well and apparently a GTX670 can play High PhysX, Max quality at 1920x1080 and still achieve 60FPS.

**So it's a good idea to run FRAPS while setting up a game and tweaking it.

5. BATMAN ARKHAM CITY:
I thought I'd add this since the game is so popular. It has coding issues, and if you dislike stuttering (who doesn't) then:
a) Disable PHYSX
b) Disable the DX11 features (tessellation and HBAO or whatever).

I've tested Batman AC extensively and the above is the only way it's fun to play the game. The PhysX weather effects cause such drops that you stutter when trying to grapel or glide. No fun.

6. CPU and RAM:
An i5-750 at stock speeds is sufficient for a GTX670/680 for most games. Overclocking it while handle the remaining games AFAIK. The best gaming CPU, IMO to buy today is the i5-3570K. You don't really need to overclock it though. Don't spend any more as a gamer.

The ideal amount of RAM is 8GB (i.e. 1600MHz DDR3) such as 2x4GB for about $40 or so. More will not provide a gamer any benefit.

7. 2GB vs 4GB:
For a single monitor up to 2560x1600, 2GB is plenty. I saw the above argument. There are RARE exceptions such as heavily modded SKYRIM. Keep in mind though that heavily modding SKYRIM also reduces the frame rate. You can easily keep piling on mods with super HD textures but it's better to choose a few, efficient ones.

FYI, Vanilla SKYRIM + Official HD Texture Pack peaks at 1.5GB of VRAM (Video RAM). It can use a card with less but you'd have minor slowdowns while buffering new textures. I wouldn't recommend the HD Texture Pack anyway without better than an HD5870.

8. Which GTX670??
Here's a list of THREE GTX670's as well as the GTX680 that I own and love. I have several games that make full use of this graphics card so if you think it's overkill, think again. (Witcher 2, BF3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, Bulletstorm, Total War Shogun 2, Batman AC, Metro 2033 and several others).

To be clear, my ASUS GTX680 TOP card will run all of the above games in better graphics quality than any GTX670 can do. Skyrim is arguable, but since i have dropped below 60FPS and it's not even modded beyond the official HD pack I included it.

Card links:
670's:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71107&vpn=GV-N670OC-2G...

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=72914&vpn=N670%20PE%20...

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71741&vpn=GTX670-DC2T-...

GTX680 ASUS TOP:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=71119&vpn=GTX680-DC2T-...

**Awesome REVIEW of Asus 670 TOP**
(the 680 is identical, except about 10% average faster and is a 3-slot card)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Make sure to read the final comment.

SUMMARY:
- avoid cheap Korean 2560x1440 screens
- if buying a 2560x1440 screen get one of the Asus, Samsung or other quality brands for about $800
- 1920x1080 should still be used for most games due to performance hit with minimal quality benefit
- 2560x1440 is recommended for games like Diablo 3 if you can achieve 60FPS, full quality due to the sharper HUD text.
- 2560x1440 needs to be scaled for desktop use (Windows settings)
- GTX670 or GTX680, buy a quality brand with good cooling solution (less noise)
- at $540, the Asus GTX680 TOP card is arguably the best single GPU card. It's simply an awesome card and worth considering.
- at $440, the Asus GTX670 TOP is an excellent card. It can play MOST games at full settings but not all so it really depends on the games you play and your budget.
- PHYSX is a nice feature, but the performance hit can be so huge it's not worth using.
- Finally, I advise you always TWEAK your game to get 60FPS most of the time. VSYNC or Adaptive VSYNC.

Good luck!

Holy crap. Strong post. It sounds like I want to stick with 1920 x 1080. Maybe I should just go for one that is a NICER 1080p monitor cuz mine is kinda crappy. I love deep colors and stuff like that. Wondering if I even need a gtx 670 now, running at 1080p. I'm using a gtx 570 @ 1ghz core right now, and it does really well on everything except a few hard to run games. Hmm.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:18:56 AM

Thanks for posting all that information. But if you didn't hear about how MSI was achieving that OC here it is.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/MSI-GTX-660-670-overvo...
I would stick to other brands since there's a higher chance of a problem with their card.

If you do get a monitor I highly recommend an ASUS one.
This is an amazing 27'' one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you want something cheaper check this out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:27:42 AM

Again, I strongly suggest you stay away from that Catleap or similar monitor. For every person that says it's a "good deal" there are several more with issues. It appears the screens are rejects from Apple, dead pixels are common and overall build quality is suspect.

Overclock such a monitor to 120Hz, if possible would also stress its components more.

*Another important thing to look for on any monitor is that the response time is sufficient for gamers.

If your BUDGET forces you to choose between a Korean 2560x1440 monitor and a good 1920x1080 Samsung or similar, get the 1920x1080 screen (22" to 24").

Prices of quality 27" 2560x1440 screens are expected to drop to $600 in another year now that competition has been heating up for these large screens.

27" 2560x1440 screens to consider:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=64747&vpn=LS27A850DS%2...

http://rog.asus.com/151702012/news/want-to-go-2560x1440...

I don't have time to investigate further.

I LOVE my U2711 and could NEVER go back to a smaller screen or lesser resolution.
a) The only drawback is the anti-gloss coating which is too grainy and sparkly. I don't notice in videos or games though. Mainly when the screen is white.

b) WARRANTY on the U2711 is incredible. Basic warranty is three years. My replacement showed up the NEXT DAY! The material to ship back to Dell was provided along with a pre-paid Waybill. I paid NOTHING for next-day delivery. Wow. I'm buying the extended Warranty ($100 for two more years).

c) Response time during games is just fine.

d) USB, SD, audio passthrough, but I don't use anything aside from the DVI input.

If you decide to go ahead with the Korean 2560x1440 screen, good luck. There's a fairly good chance that you will be happy with it. It's just that there's a high percentage of people who also have bleeding, dead pixels and other issues. Not sure on the Warranty.

Please, nobody FLAME me. I'm not a fanboy, try to be fair and provide this and the above comment to EDUCATE.

My general experience with products has been that you get what you pay for (not always).
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:30:22 AM

andrewcarr said:
Thanks for posting all that information. But if you didn't hear about how MSI was achieving that OC here it is.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/MSI-GTX-660-670-overvo...
I would stick to other brands since there's a higher chance of a problem with their card.

If you do get a monitor I highly recommend an ASUS one.
This is an amazing 27'' one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you want something cheaper check this out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I already have a monitor but it's not too amazing. It seems I'm at an impasse as to what to do.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:33:41 AM

photonboy said:
Again, I strongly suggest you stay away from that Catleap or similar monitor. For every person that says it's a "good deal" there are several more with issues. It appears the screens are rejects from Apple, dead pixels are common and overall build quality is suspect.

Overclock such a monitor to 120Hz, if possible would also stress its components more.

*Another important thing to look for on any monitor is that the response time is sufficient for gamers.

If your BUDGET forces you to choose between a Korean 2560x1440 monitor and a good 1920x1080 Samsung or similar, get the 1920x1080 screen (22" to 24").

Prices of quality 27" 2560x1440 screens are expected to drop to $600 in another year now that competition has been heating up for these large screens.

27" 2560x1440 screens to consider:
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=64747&vpn=LS27A850DS%2...

http://rog.asus.com/151702012/news/want-to-go-2560x1440...

I don't have time to investigate further.

I LOVE my U2711 and could NEVER go back to a smaller screen or lesser resolution.
a) The only drawback is the anti-gloss coating which is too grainy and sparkly. I don't notice in videos or games though. Mainly when the screen is white.

b) WARRANTY on the U2711 is incredible. Basic warranty is three years. My replacement showed up the NEXT DAY! The material to ship back to Dell was provided along with a pre-paid Waybill. I paid NOTHING for next-day delivery. Wow. I'm buying the extended Warranty ($100 for two more years).

c) Response time during games is just fine.

d) USB, SD, audio passthrough, but I don't use anything aside from the DVI input.

If you decide to go ahead with the Korean 2560x1440 screen, good luck. There's a fairly good chance that you will be happy with it. It's just that there's a high percentage of people who also have bleeding, dead pixels and other issues. Not sure on the Warranty.

Please, nobody FLAME me. I'm not a fanboy, try to be fair and provide this and the above comment to EDUCATE.

My general experience with products has been that you get what you pay for (not always).

Thank you for the help, I think I'll not go with a 2560 x 1440 any more.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:34:21 AM

I struggle to see a reason to get a gtx 670 for a 1080p monitor. My 1ghz gtx 570 works really well. Oh well.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:38:43 AM

ArcticWonder said:
Holy crap. Strong post. It sounds like I want to stick with 1920 x 1080. Maybe I should just go for one that is a NICER 1080p monitor cuz mine is kinda crappy. I love deep colors and stuff like that. Wondering if I even need a gtx 670 now, running at 1080p. I'm using a gtx 570 @ 1ghz core right now, and it does really well on everything except a few hard to run games. Hmm.


The graphics card boils down to what games you play. As I said above, there are several games that look the best on a GTX680, however these same games will still look good on a GTX570.

Other games like Diablo 3, Half Life 2, Bioshock, and even Mass Effect 1/2/3 should run at max quality on your system. SKRYIM without mods as well. With your card I'd probably apply the official HD texture pack, but you MAY have to monitor with FRAPS and tweak if you wish to maintain 60FPS most of the time (I hate screen tearing).

BTW, in case you didn't notice the new drivers for NVidia add Adaptive VSYNC support for your card. I recommend using it for most games but not globally. In case you don't know how it works:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforc...

Enabling it will override whatever you have setup for the game. It also forces VSYNC for games that had no previous VSYNC support. Witcher #1 had massive screen tearing until I force VSYNC in the AMD (now NVidia) Control Panel. You can usually find the EXE file easily. The Witcher 1 main file wasn't in the main directory but a sub directory. My Steam games are on a separate hard drive (Windows on an SSD). This is how you'd add an EXE file into your NVidia Control Panel:
a) open NCC-> "Manager 3D Settings"
b) "Program Settings" -> Add game -> (Browse)
c) E:\STEAM\steamapps\common\the witcher enhanced edition\System
d) in the above folder add the "witcher" EXE file.
e) choose "Adaptive VSYNC" then click APPLY
f) open FRAPS, then the game and VERIFY that VSYNC is synching at 60FPS (could be less if settings too high, but no more)

Another useful thing to do is force Anti-Aliasing for unsupported games. I usually just do MSAA, but for Mass Effect 1 and 2 I used SuperSampling and it made a huge, huge difference.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:38:58 AM

GREAT post, photonboy. I'd recommend an Ultrasharp @ 1920x1200. Things will look sharper than 1080p, because you get 120 more vertical pixels, and an IPS monitor is definitely the way to go. There's a $300 eIPS and a $500 IPS Dell Ultrasharp available on Newegg. I doubt you'd notice any difference between the two, though. 8ms, by the way which is fine for gaming. Unless you can't get enough of MW3 (no motion-blur, so even the slightest ghosting is an issue.)
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:42:20 AM


Do not worry about the TH review. You only heard one story.I honestly think this is from a new batch.It's because MSI is trying to keep their customers happy but NV is really bulling them about voltage locking.The issue is MSI has already sold millions of this product claiming the voltage is unlocked.I can understand they had to try to do something to keep customers happy, but at the same time follow NV rule.Well this put MSI in a very bad position.Clearly it was wrong what they did.I understand why though people should not be so mad at MSI it's NV they should be pissed at but enough of all that talk.I do not want to get into a big debate it.Bottom line... MSI has to back up their warranty on the cards.I own two MSI 670 PE not a dam thing wrong with them.I would not return my cards even if they asked me to lol! There, something bigger going on then most are catching onto but i am not going to say because i do not want to be involved. The MSI's GTX 670 Power Edition uses the Twin Frozr IV cooler from the MSI Lightning and comes with a large clock speed boost out of the box, making its default clock speed even higher than GTX 680 stock clocks. MSI is asking a $30 price premium for their card, which doesn't look unreasonable, given the improved cooling and higher clocks..


The overvoltage is only about the RICHTEK RT8802A - 2/3/4/5-Phase PWM Controller chip.


RICHTEK's Recommended Operating Supply Voltage: 5V ± 10%


RICHTEK's specified Absolute Maximum Supply Voltage: 7V
• Operating above this value may cause permanent damage to the device.


MSI's design Operating Voltage for this device: 9.3V
• Reduces voltage droop to the GPU.


In some systems this excessive voltage to the RT8802A chip will cause the Power Good signal to the power supply unit to be false resulting in a system that will not power on. If you bought one of these cards and you are experiencing this problem then this overvoltage of the RT8802A chip may be the cause if you have not gone out and bought a new power supply unit or had the power supply unit RMA'd under the false assumption that it's defective. Maybe you even RMA'd the motherboard because this problem because there is really no way of determining the cause.



Ask yourself this if the MSI 670 PE was so bad how come only TH complained about it how come it has a four out of five star rating on every site its sold how come every professional, reliable review aside from TH recommends it and awards it examples :
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Ed...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-670-power...
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r... tisk...tisk...looks like it's a solid card after all i rest my case.




m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 12, 2012 2:43:04 AM

photonboy said:
BTW, in case you didn't notice the new drivers for NVidia add Adaptive VSYNC support for your card. I recommend using it for most games but not globally. In case you don't know how it works:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforc...

Enabling it will override whatever you have setup for the game. It also forces VSYNC for games that had no previous VSYNC support.

Another useful thing to do is force Anti-Aliasing for unsupported games. I usually just do MSAA, but for Mass Effect 1 and 2 I used SuperSampling and it made a huge, huge difference.

When I heard about Adaptive Vsync for the first time, I was like. :o  Freaking. Genius.

And I totally agree on Mass Effect. Supersampling is the way to go with those games. :sol: 
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 2:47:06 AM

How well does a gtx 670 run 3 monitors @ 1080p??
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 C Monitor
October 12, 2012 3:04:37 AM

You originally wanted the Catleap for high hz, perhaps you should consider going with a 120hz TN monitor, like the BenQ XL2420T or ASUS VG278HE. If you want the extra responsiveness when gaming, a 120hz monitor is key.
m
0
l
!