Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 570 SLI : 5760x1200 VS 2560x1600 VS 2560x1440

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 30, 2012 4:11:05 PM

Hi,
I'm facing a dilemma in where to go next regarding displays and would like the educated opinions of those who tried one or more of the options outlined below.

My built:
Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3
Corsair Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Intel 320 Series 120GB / Intel 520 Series 120GB / External 1TB eSata Verbatim
2x EVGA GeForce GTX 570 1.28 GB (I’m aware of the low VRAM)
Corsair Obsidian 650D
Corsair HX850
Monitor: Samsung 32’ HDTV 1920x1080

Games I'm playing : Skyrim, SCII WoL, DIII, WoW MoP (hence, mostly Blizz’s games).

Games I’m looking forward to play : Any “must-play’ AAA titles, and the expansions for the games aforementioned

My Issue : My Samsung HTDV doesn’t do justice to what my rig can deliver in terms of display. I am therefore hesitating between three options in where to go next. Note that I don’t mind spending cash as long as it’s necessary and completely worth it (i.e. it’s useful and I’m getting the best bang for my buck).

Option 1 : Triple monitor setup, 5760x1200, with three IPS monitors
Such as these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Questions for this option:
A. The million dollar question: is a triple monitor setup really worth the money? Would it be really that awesome for the games aforementioned?
B. Anyone has benchmarks for any games for 570 1.28 G SLIs at 5760 x 1200 ? I haven’t found any benchmarks for 570s in NVidia Surround, for any games.

Option 2: A single 30’ 2560x1600
Considering Tom’s testing, even with the 1.28G VRAM it seems that 570s will handle 2560x1600 pretty well: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way...

Questions:
A. Is a 30’ single display at 2560x1600 better than 3x24’ at 5760 x 1200 for gaming?
B. IS a 30’ 2560x1600 worth the money compare to a much cheaper 27’ 2560x1440 ? This question leads me to option 3:

Option 3: A 27’ 2560x1440
And jumping in the bandwagon by getting the cheap but great Yamakazi Catleap Q270 (http://www.overclock.net/t/1225919/yamakasi-catleap-mon... )

Conclusion: I guess the big question comes down to what is better and more fun for gaming: a big single monitor with high-end resolution (30’ 2560x1600), a smaller but cheaper 27’ 2560x 1440, or a triple monitor setup with 3x24’ monitors for a 5760 x 1200 resolution.

And as far as the VRAM is concern, it seems that it’s a bit overrated: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-... and in some scenarios doens't change anything.
It’s still however very nebulous to me and I’m therefore turning to you to get a clearer idea.

Edit: Formatting/Spelling
November 30, 2012 4:28:08 PM

You're going to HAVE TO upgrade your graphics card because that vram is going to seriously bottleneck you system.

1280MB vram simply isn't enough to drive the demanding games today at anything over 1080p. (hell... a heavily modded skyrim will easily take up over 2GB of vram)

IMO, both of those options will be terrible because of the vram limitations.

But if you really insist, I would go with the 2560x1440 monitor since it's one uninterrupted screen. The bezels around the screens annoy the hell out of me when playing on triple monitors.

And you'll get way better performance on 2560x1440 than triple monitor set-up because of your vram limitations.



Oh ya.I guess this all depends on how far you're sitting from your monitor. I sit about 2 feet away from my monitor and I can't ever imagine going over a 27"or 30" monitor since it would basically fill up my entire FOV without turning to see everything. If you're sitting further back, you can get away with the triple monitor...





Actually...I would say that triple monitor set-up is only worth it on fps and racing games... where the awareness of your surrounding actually matters...
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 5:56:33 PM

I have the Dell 27" 2560x1440, upgraded a few months ago and I love it. I had a lot of the same questions you did, did the research, ended up with the Dell. I had a 5870, with 1 GB VRAM (very similar performance to your card) and it didn't cut it so I upgraded to a 7950 with 3 GB of VRAM. Made a huge difference. I intend to go CF once prices drop a bit more.

As above poster suggested, the VRAM will seriously limit the abilities of that 570 on higher resolutions. Sell it on ebay and get a newer card with lots of VRAM. Don't settle for either high resolution or AA, do both!

For the monitor, I upgraded from an older tech screen to the IPS of the big Dell and even the BIOS splash screen was shockingly better than my old monitor. The Dell is actually on sale today (see the daily deals on the news lists) for a little above $700. Cheaper than three screens.
The reasons I decided to skip triple monitors: Doesn't work with all games--royal pain trying to get it working, quality of an IPS monitor, desk space, siting close enough to waste 3 monitors.

m
0
l
Related resources
a c 81 Î Nvidia
December 4, 2012 10:29:17 PM

I can't really recommend either of your possible choices, as I have never gone down those routes. The question is, what sort of performance do you get now? If you keep AA off, you may find the extra resolution will have very little impact on performance. Resolution by itself adds a pretty small amount of extra vram usage. The frame buffers are quite small, even on a 1600p monitor, but when mixing VRAM into the equation and using high texture models, then VRAM usage goes up rapidly.
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 1:57:34 AM

It isn't that high res takes the VRAM, it is that he can't do high res AND AA since AA at high res requires large amounts of VRAM. Sure, the 570 will do fine at 2560x1600 but only with low levels of AA. It looks horrible and is a waste of the monitor--I have done it! It is like putting a 150 horse power engine in a big truck. Sure, it will move the thing, but nothing else.
m
0
l
December 7, 2012 3:41:18 PM

I guess it therefore comes down to the 120hz TN vs High resolution IPS panels.
No right awnsers to by found there either.
Damn it, why can they just make a IPS 1440p 120hz monitor ? Seems it would solve a lot of gamers "1st-world" problems.
m
0
l
a c 81 Î Nvidia
December 7, 2012 4:18:06 PM

FFM said:
I guess it therefore comes down to the 120hz TN vs High resolution IPS panels.
No right awnsers to by found there either.
Damn it, why can they just make a IPS 1440p 120hz monitor ? Seems it would solve a lot of gamers "1st-world" problems.

IPS monitors aren't good enough for 120hz. Due to slow response time, they cause ghosting.
m
0
l
!