Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Should I get 4GB or 2GB GTX 670s?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 31, 2012 9:20:15 PM

2x 4GB GTX 670s in SLI cost around $880

2x 2GB GTX 670s in SLI cost around $720


Is the extra video RAM worth $160?

I'm planning on using them for Surround 3D Vision. I figured on the 670s over the 680s because could add a third card if needed and the speed difference between the two seems very minimal.

More about : 4gb 2gb gtx 670s

December 31, 2012 10:57:33 PM

surround 3D vision is the equilivant of 6 displays, for this I would suggest the 4GB cards, sorry =)
m
0
l
December 31, 2012 10:58:06 PM

in fact

I would suggest a 6GB 7970 crossfire.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
December 31, 2012 11:27:21 PM

rs2k said:
2x 4GB GTX 670s in SLI cost around $880

2x 2GB GTX 670s in SLI cost around $720


Is the extra video RAM worth $160?

I'm planning on using them for Surround 3D Vision. I figured on the 670s over the 680s because could add a third card if needed and the speed difference between the two seems very minimal.
Depends what res monitors ?
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM

cygone said:
in fact

I would suggest a 6GB 7970 crossfire.


I'd love to go with ATI, but I don't think HD3D has the same level of support as 3D surround vision.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 12:13:37 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Depends what res monitors ?


I'm planning on getting 1X Benq XL2410TX and 2X Benq XL2410T
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 12:42:27 AM

rs2k said:
I'm planning on getting 1X Benq XL2410TX and 2X Benq XL2410T
I would go for 2gb in that case if you want to run 3x @ any higher 2560x1440. Example: 7680x1440 displays you're going to need more Vram allocated to each GPU, in this case a GTX 670 4Gb SLI would be the right choice.
There really is no good legit review.I have seen giving any reason to buy 4GB cards yet imo seems pretty much is based on blanket statements or a bunch of hype.Also, games that actually need more than 2GB of VRAM tend to be GPU demanding like Skyrim with ENB mods and Metro2033,ARMA II,Witcher 2 with Ubersampling,Far Cry 3, are the only ones i can think of. Pretty much the only thing that increases the need for vram is higher resolutions or extreme AA situations. EDIT- Found a review QUOTE: Conclusion


Increasing the amount of memory on board of GeForce GTX 670 and GTX 680 cards translates to obvious performance benefits only in specific unique cases, such as triple-monitor set-ups with 3240x1920 resolution and enabled antialiasing. Metro 2033: The Last Refuge and Sniper Elite V2 are the only games that need more than the standard 2 GB of graphics memory, but the contemporary High-End graphics cards are anyway too slow in these games even with 4 GB of video memory. In the rest of our games we could hardly see any difference between GeForce GTX 670s with 2 and 4 GB of memory in 3240x1920 and no difference at all in 2560x1440. So, purchasing a 4GB card wouldn't be worth the investment unless you've got a triple-monitor configuration. But if you do have one, 4GB graphics cards really make sense for 2-, 3- and 4-way SLI configurations and playing contemporary games at high resolutions. In this case, the increased amount of memory would not become the bottleneck.


As for the particular product, the EVGA GeForce GTX 670 Superclocked+ 4GB is a well-made card that follows the reference design with minor modifications such as the shape of the vent grid and the increased GPU clock rate. By the way, EVGA played it safe with the GPU, which actually turned out to have much better overclocking potential. The memory chips could have also been overclocked to 6608 MHz, for example. The product definitely deserves high scores for its good accessories, handy software tools (Precision X and OC Scanner) and 3-year warranty. Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-...


The more sensible choice is two MSI's GTX 670 Power Edition uses the famous 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 $359.99 price for their card, which doesn't look unreasonable, given the improved cooling and higher clocks or two the GIGABYTE GTX 670 OC is one of GIGABYTE’s overclocked video cards in the GeForce GTX 600 series lineup. It includes GIGABYTE’s Windforce 3X cooling solution and a factory overclock. NVIDIA’s reference GTX 670 platform has the base GPU clock speed set to 915MHz on the core, while GIGABYTE starts their offering out at 980MHz.

GIGABYTE loaded this custom video card up with its Ultra Durable VGA components. These include first tier Samsung and Hynix memories, high quality capacitors, ferrite chokes, and MOSFETs. Together these components combine for several benefits for the video card. GPU temperatures will be lower, it will provide for better overclocking ability, and will improve power efficiency which can increase performance.Gigabyte Windforce OC 670 - 9.8 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX...
$359.99 http://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-GV-N670OC-2GD-GeForce-Wi...


m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 1:15:51 AM

One thing to consider, in a 3D Vision surround setup, you are going to put a tremendous amount of demand on the GPU's, to a point that AA will not likely be possible, which is about the only reason for more than 2GB.

That said, 3D Vision could have some extra VRAM requirements. Though I have not noticed it with my 1080p, it has been very difficult to test accurately.

Anyways, if you are new to 3D Vision, here is a site you should have: http://helixmod.wikispot.org/gamelist
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:22:15 AM

bigcyco1 said:
I would go for 2gb in that case if you want to run 3x @ any higher 2560x1440. Example: 7680x1440 displays you're going to need more Vram allocated to each GPU, in this case a GTX 670 4Gb SLI would be the right choice.
There really is no good legit review.I have seen giving any reason to buy 4GB cards yet imo seems pretty much is based on blanket statements or a bunch of hype.Also, games that actually need more than 2GB of VRAM tend to be GPU demanding like Skyrim with ENB mods and Metro2033,ARMA II,Witcher 2 with Ubersampling,Far Cry 3, are the only ones i can think of. Pretty much the only thing that increases the need for vram is higher resolutions or extreme AA situations. EDIT- Found a review QUOTE: Conclusion


Increasing the amount of memory on board of GeForce GTX 670 and GTX 680 cards translates to obvious performance benefits only in specific unique cases, such as triple-monitor set-ups with 3240x1920 resolution and enabled antialiasing. Metro 2033: The Last Refuge and Sniper Elite V2 are the only games that need more than the standard 2 GB of graphics memory, but the contemporary High-End graphics cards are anyway too slow in these games even with 4 GB of video memory. In the rest of our games we could hardly see any difference between GeForce GTX 670s with 2 and 4 GB of memory in 3240x1920 and no difference at all in 2560x1440. So, purchasing a 4GB card wouldn't be worth the investment unless you've got a triple-monitor configuration. But if you do have one, 4GB graphics cards really make sense for 2-, 3- and 4-way SLI configurations and playing contemporary games at high resolutions. In this case, the increased amount of memory would not become the bottleneck.


As for the particular product, the EVGA GeForce GTX 670 Superclocked+ 4GB is a well-made card that follows the reference design with minor modifications such as the shape of the vent grid and the increased GPU clock rate. By the way, EVGA played it safe with the GPU, which actually turned out to have much better overclocking potential. The memory chips could have also been overclocked to 6608 MHz, for example. The product definitely deserves high scores for its good accessories, handy software tools (Precision X and OC Scanner) and 3-year warranty. Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-...


The more sensible choice is two MSI's GTX 670 Power Edition uses the famous 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 $359.99 price for their card, which doesn't look unreasonable, given the improved cooling and higher clocks or two the GIGABYTE GTX 670 OC is one of GIGABYTE’s overclocked video cards in the GeForce GTX 600 series lineup. It includes GIGABYTE’s Windforce 3X cooling solution and a factory overclock. NVIDIA’s reference GTX 670 platform has the base GPU clock speed set to 915MHz on the core, while GIGABYTE starts their offering out at 980MHz.

GIGABYTE loaded this custom video card up with its Ultra Durable VGA components. These include first tier Samsung and Hynix memories, high quality capacitors, ferrite chokes, and MOSFETs. Together these components combine for several benefits for the video card. GPU temperatures will be lower, it will provide for better overclocking ability, and will improve power efficiency which can increase performance.Gigabyte Windforce OC 670 - 9.8 rating
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX...
$359.99 http://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-GV-N670OC-2GD-GeForce-Wi...



Thanks for the info.

I'm wondering if 5940x1080 with 3D vision would be considered a special case for 4GB.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:26:16 AM

bystander said:
One thing to consider, in a 3D Vision surround setup, you are going to put a tremendous amount of demand on the GPU's, to a point that AA will not likely be possible, which is about the only reason for more than 2GB.

That said, 3D Vision could have some extra VRAM requirements. Though I have not noticed it with my 1080p, it has been very difficult to test accurately.

Anyways, if you are new to 3D Vision, here is a site you should have: http://helixmod.wikispot.org/gamelist



I've honestly never used AA that much. It always seems to introduce input lag and I can't stand that. I don't really see the point off AA if I'm using 3x 24 inch screens at more than arms length. The human eye can't even see the pixels.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:38:47 AM

cygone said:
in fact

I would suggest a 6GB 7970 crossfire.


320 bucks over what he has listed....

Big spoke the gospel on Vram and resolutions. But if money is not an object, then by all means go for the 7970 setup.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 3:00:39 AM

silky salamandr said:
320 bucks over what he has listed....

Big spoke the gospel on Vram and resolutions. But if money is not an object, then by all means go for the 7970 setup.


Going 3D Vision surround means Nvidia, though AMD does have HD3D support, but it generally isn't as well supported.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 3:09:52 AM

bystander said:
Going 3D Vision surround means Nvidia, though AMD does have HD3D support, but it generally isn't as well supported.
+1
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:02:30 AM

For SLI and 3D Surround, you need 4GB without a doubt.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:26:37 AM

3D does not use much more memory than regular 2D IIRC. The only worry for your graphics memory should be the higher resolution, assuming that you forgo heavy MSAA. For that, the 4GB models may have an advantage in some situations. It's a difficult situation IMO because AMD excels in the high resolutions compared to Nvidia, but Nvidia has better 3D support...
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:29:41 AM

rs2k said:
I've honestly never used AA that much. It always seems to introduce input lag and I can't stand that. I don't really see the point off AA if I'm using 3x 24 inch screens at more than arms length. The human eye can't even see the pixels.


Unless you have poor vision, you should be able to see the pixels on 24" displays unless they have 4K resolutions or higher or you are very far away from them. AA should help, but you're unlikely to have enough performance for it.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 7:53:17 AM

Its not about how much VRAM 3D uses, it about how many megapixel you have for AA and AF to render through, 3D vision is basically 2x2D slapped on top of each other. You will need lots of VRAM.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 12:58:02 PM

blazorthon said:
Unless you have poor vision, you should be able to see the pixels on 24" displays unless they have 4K resolutions or higher or you are very far away from them. AA should help, but you're unlikely to have enough performance for it.



A 24 inch 1080P display become retina at 37 inches... which is about the distance my monitors sit from my eyes. :D 
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:01:33 PM

Hmmm, I'm seriously thinking about going with two 4GB 670s. If I don't get enough frames I can always put in a third, where as if I don't have enough RAM it's going to require new cards all together.

Tough choice! Newegg just ran out of the BenQ 3D monitors I was planning on buying today with all the new components. I guess I have a little more time to think.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 1:18:48 PM

Have you considered just a single GTX690?
It is the equivalent of sli GTX680 cards in one card.
You will run cooler and quieter, need only a 620W psu, and not even need an expensive sli capable motherboard.
Yes, they are expensive, $999.
But it comes with 4gb, and the sli function is done under the card firmware.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:20:49 PM

geofelt said:
Have you considered just a single GTX690?
It is the equivalent of sli GTX680 cards in one card.
You will run cooler and quieter, need only a 620W psu, and not even need an expensive sli capable motherboard.
Yes, they are expensive, $999.
But it comes with 4gb, and the sli function is done under the card firmware.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Yes, I am definitely considering that. I've read that the 4GB is really only 2GB per core though. I've also read the 690 tends to pump its heat into the case while the 670s and 680s put less heat into the case and have the option of using twice the RAM.

I decided on 670s only because they are much cheaper than the 680s with almost the same speed.

The PSU calculator I used shows I only need a 620 watt with the double 670s or with the single 690.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 1:33:44 PM

rs2k said:
Yes, I am definitely considering that. I've read that the 4GB is really only 2GB per core though. I've also read the 690 tends to pump its heat into the case while the 670s and 680s put less heat into the case and have the option of using twice the RAM.

I decided on 670s only because they are much cheaper than the 680s with almost the same speed.

The PSU calculator I used shows I only need a 620 watt with the double 670s or with the single 690.


The graphics card designers know what they are doing.
They put the appropriate amount of vram and other specs to meet a given price performance target.
If value is part of your consideration, then I think GTX670 and 2gb is about right.
If the price is not a big concern, go with 4gb GTX680.

PSU calculators are only as good as the input you give them.
There are some unknowable factors such as capacitor ageing and future upgrade reserves.
Also, I think overprovisioning a bit is a good idea anyway.
A psu will operate more efficiently and quietly in the middle third of it's range.
I would look at a top quality unit in the 750-850w range. The price difference is not that great.

And... second quarter, when haswell arrives, I think we will see the GTX780 series and amd 8xxx cards.
Whatever you buy today, be prepared to sell it in favor of the next best thing if you are looking for top performance.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:36:57 PM

GTX 690 is 2x2GB aka 2GB per GPU, so it's basically two underclocked GTX 680 2GB models in SLI, but on a single card and yes, they often do get much warmer than most GTX 670/680 cards do because they have less cooling per GPU than the GTX 670 has due to size constraints.

Two GTX 670 4GB models would be far cheaper and would have 4GB per GPU. I think that I'd suggest going with the 4GB models because like you said, if you end up needing that much anyway, then it would mean needing multiple new cards if you go for 2GB models now and eventually, even if 2GB models are sufficient right now, they almost definitely won't be enough later on without making some compromises.

cygone said:
Its not about how much VRAM 3D uses, it about how many megapixel you have for AA and AF to render through, 3D vision is basically 2x2D slapped on top of each other. You will need lots of VRAM.


OP wouldn't have enough performance for much AA, if any at all, so like I said, it shouldn't be a problem. Even four GTX 680 4GB cards would struggle assuming that they had perfect scaling, let alone two or three GTX 670s with realistic scaling.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:42:05 PM

geofelt said:
The graphics card designers know what they are doing.
They put the appropriate amount of vram and other specs to meet a given price performance target.
If value is part of your consideration, then I think GTX670 and 2gb is about right.
If the price is not a big concern, go with 4gb GTX680.

PSU calculators are only as good as the input you give them.
There are some unknowable factors such as capacitor ageing and future upgrade reserves.
Also, I think overprovisioning a bit is a good idea anyway.
A psu will operate more efficiently and quietly in the middle third of it's range.
I would look at a top quality unit in the 750-850w range. The price difference is not that great.

And... second quarter, when haswell arrives, I think we will see the GTX780 series and amd 8xxx cards.
Whatever you buy today, be prepared to sell it in favor of the next best thing if you are looking for top performance.


Graphics card designers screw up every generation in some way or multiple ways (usually multiple). It doesn't matter if we say that they know what they're doing because they are far from infallible.

THe 4GB models can usually be had (at least some of them) for almost as cheaply as the 2GB models and looking at what OP wants to do, they wouldn't be unreasonable.

Just so everyone knows, wattage of the PSU is pretty much irrelevant nowadays. What matters is build quality, efficiency, and how much load the +12V rail(s) can handle. For example, a good 430W can handle even a Radeon 7850 with ease, yet a bad 600W can struggle with even a Radeon 7770 GHz Edition because of most of its wattage being on the wrong rails and it not being built to handle maximum loads that its rated for very well. I do agree that most top-quality units would be adequate in the 750-850W range, but it often helps to be more informative about what matters.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:46:50 PM

blazorthon said:
GTX 690 is 2x2GB aka 2GB per GPU, so it's basically two underclocked GTX 680 2GB models in SLI, but on a single card and yes, they often do get much warmer than most GTX 670/680 cards do because they have less cooling per GPU than the GTX 670 has due to size constraints.

Two GTX 670 4GB models would be far cheaper and would have 4GB per GPU. I think that I'd suggest going with the 4GB models because like you said, if you end up needing that much anyway, then it would mean needing multiple new cards if you go for 2GB models now and eventually, even if 2GB models are sufficient right now, they almost definitely won't be enough later on without making some compromises.



OP wouldn't have enough performance for much AA, if any at all, so like I said, it shouldn't be a problem. Even four GTX 680 4GB cards would struggle assuming that they had perfect scaling, let alone two or three GTX 670s with realistic scaling.


Well, since new cards will be coming out in the second or third quarter and AA seems close to impossible with 3D surround vision, it seems to make sense to go with two 670 2GB models now with a possible upgrade later in the year.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 1:58:52 PM

rs2k said:
Well, since new cards will be coming out in the second or third quarter and AA seems close to impossible with 3D surround vision, it seems to make sense to go with two 670 2GB models now with a possible upgrade later in the year.


IDK which way to go if it's intended to upgrade that soon... Why not just wait for the new hardware if you'd upgrade that soon? It'd probably be a lot cheaper and less hassle.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:02:46 PM

blazorthon said:
IDK which way to go if it's intended to upgrade that soon... Why not just wait for the new hardware if that's how it'll be done? It'd probably be a lot cheaper and less hassle.



My main computer is dying. It's been HEAVILY used and overclocked and ran almost nonstop for over 3 years, has trouble booting up, randomly restarts and has had a few caps explode. :ouch: 

That and I'm probably going to need a completely second rig come mid year. I figured I could get a slight budget rig now and buy a second all out rig in 6 or 7 months.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:12:23 PM

Your situation is really not as simple as upgrading/replacement usually is, what with the differing options and the implications of each option...

Well, if you intend to upgrade ASAP to the newest hardware, then sure, go for the 2GB models. They could save you some money that way and probably won't reduce in value to much before you sell them to make way for the next generation. Even if the 4GB models depreciate in value by the same percentage, that'd still be more money lost in the resale unless you get a very good deal.

If you don't upgrade so soon, then the 4GB models might make more sense.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 2:13:30 PM

rs2k said:
My main computer is dying. It's been HEAVILY used and overclocked and ran almost nonstop for over 3 years, has trouble booting up, randomly restarts and has had a few caps explode. :ouch: 

That and I'm probably going to need a completely second rig come mid year. I figured I could get a slight budget rig now and buy a second all out rig in 6 or 7 months.


You might want to fix your current problems with a cpu/mobo upgrade, and try to hang on with your graphics cards perhaps until march.
At least, do that first.
I see a 3570K as a good 4 year gaming solution.
The rumored march graphics offerings are in the 15% improvement range.
I don't know if that is worth waiting for if you can get the performance you want with current cards.
Usually, if you have a top end card, or near to it, it is not hard to market when new cards come out.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:20:09 PM

geofelt said:
You might want to fix your current problems with a cpu/mobo upgrade, and try to hang on with your graphics cards perhaps until march.
At least, do that first.
I see a 3570K as a good 4 year gaming solution.
The rumored march graphics offerings are in the 15% improvement range.
I don't know if that is worth waiting for if you can get the performance you want with current cards.
Usually, if you have a top end card, or near to it, it is not hard to market when new cards come out.


Hmm, I've already been holding off for a long while now. I have an AMD Phenom II 955 BE and a Radeon 5770.

If I don't go 3D I'd go with 3 korean 27 inch IPS screens. If I do that I need a new card anyway since the 5770 can't run them. I'd also probably go with ATI if I don't do 3D.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:25:33 PM

3D really isn't that useful IMO, I mean it's nice but it's eh. I would rather do a Eyefinity set up with like a 7970.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:26:47 PM

payturr said:
3D really isn't that useful IMO, I mean it's nice but it's eh. I would rather do a Eyefinity set up with like a 7970.



Hmmm. Would the 3GB 7970 be enough for those big screens? or should I go with the 6GB crossfire? I'd like to be able to max my settings out if I'm doing eyefinity instead of 3d surround vision.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:31:56 PM

3GB models should be enough IMO. Besides, 6GB models are so expensive that they aren't worth considering last I checked.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 2:35:08 PM

payturr said:
3D really isn't that useful IMO, I mean it's nice but it's eh. I would rather do a Eyefinity set up with like a 7970.


Do you have a 3D Vision setup? If not, you are just speculating.

Personally, as someone who has a 3D Vision setup, I never play a game without 3D if 3D is an option.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 2:35:16 PM

rs2k said:
Hmm, I've already been holding off for a long while now. I have an AMD Phenom II 955 BE and a Radeon 5770.

If I don't go 3D I'd go with 3 korean 27 inch IPS screens. If I do that I need a new card anyway since the 5770 can't run them. I'd also probably go with ATI if I don't do 3D.


I don't much like interim solutions.
A cpu upgrade to a 3570K is about as good as it gets, and will last a long time.
You can do that now, and it solves a problem you have now.

I like the idea of the Korean catleap 2560 x 1440 monitors.
Checking the forums, users are in general very happy with them.
I might worry about the warranty, but
the price is certainly very attractive.
You might try one, and see how it goes.

You will probably want a new graphics card, and a GTX670 would be appropriate.
It CAN run three monitors, and at least you will have a better idea of what you will want/need.

For my part, I don't like 3d in movies, I have a hard time with the glasses.
I can see how games could be more immersive.

I see no need to do all your upgrades at once.
A lot of the fun in this game is the planning for the next upgrade.
Doing it bit by bit prolongs that fun.
And.. who knows, you might change your mind about what you want along the way.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 2:39:10 PM

rs2k said:
Hmmm. Would the 3GB 7970 be enough for those big screens? or should I go with the 6GB crossfire? I'd like to be able to max my settings out if I'm doing eyefinity instead of 3d surround vision.


As bigcyco1 mentioned earlier, at 5760x1080, 2GB's is shown to be enough. The only times 2GB comes up short, are times where the settings were high enough that it didn't matter if you have 4GB, as they FPS were still unplayable. 3GB would be plenty, but I wouldn't jump ship on 3D Vision over one persons opinion, and likely an ignorant one. Most people who talk down about 3D Vision, don't have 3D Vision.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 1, 2013 2:45:46 PM

cygone said:
Its not about how much VRAM 3D uses, it about how many megapixel you have for AA and AF to render through, 3D vision is basically 2x2D slapped on top of each other. You will need lots of VRAM.


3D does not work that way. In 3D, two images are created, one after the next. That means the only difference could be an additional buffer to hold the extra image, if they even do that. At 5760x1080, that amounts to less than 20mb of extra VRAM usage.

I have tried to compare with Skyrim, and I couldn't see any difference between 2D and 3D, but it was jumping around enough, that I wasn't completely satisfied with my results.
Share
January 1, 2013 2:48:53 PM

Like I said earlier, 3D doesn't use much memory.

Thanks for clarifying it further, bystander :) 
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 2:59:09 PM

geofelt said:
I see no need to do all your upgrades at once.
A lot of the fun in this game is the planning for the next upgrade.
Doing it bit by bit prolongs that fun.
And.. who knows, you might change your mind about what you want along the way.


You are 100% correct about that. It is more fulfilling doing it a bit at a time. That's how I normally operate. I'm going to need more office equipment. Choosing a 2D solution now gives me the option to give those monitors to my employees 6 months from now when I upgrade. ;) 

5760x1080 (6.2mp) VS 7680x1440 (11mp)

It seems like 24 inch 2d screens running at 5760x1080 will run much better with a 7970 than 27 inch screens running at 7680x1440. I'm pretty sure the 7680x1440 would look quite a bit better though. Effective retina DPI occurs at 32 inches for the 7680x1440s and 37 inches for the 5760x1080s.
m
0
l
January 7, 2013 11:10:15 PM

Best answer selected by rs2k.
m
0
l
January 7, 2013 11:13:28 PM

I went with a pair of GV-N670OC-2GD. They seem to be faster than SLI 680's and a single 690. I've also read Quad SLI doesn't really help with 3D vision so this should be the fastest possible solution for me... at a bargain too!

Moe research tells me the 4 GB version would be a waste of money.

I also bit the bullet and got three Benq XL2410TX's since both Nvidia and Benq told me it was a bad idea to use both the Benq XL2410TX and the Benq XL2410T together. The cost of 3 Benq XL2410TX's was almost the same as 3 Benq XL2410T's with the 3D vision kit.
m
0
l
!