Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade Advice for 2560x1440 Resolution

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 30, 2013 3:02:33 PM

Hey everyone,

I am looking to buy a 2560x1440 resolution monitor and need to decide on a graphics card. I currently play at 1680x1050 and have a GTX 470 which works well. But I know once I buy a new monitor with that resolution, I will need to upgrade if I want to play on max settings. I was thinking about getting this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008LTJR06/ref=ox_sc_s...) GTX 670 4GB since it's only $380 after rebate. It seems like from what I've read, it would handle this resolution pretty well for now and I could always grab a second one in a year if I need to. What I'm wondering is if anyone has any advice or experience with this resolution and maybe this card that could let me know how it performs. Also, I am willing to hold off buying a monitor and card until the next series of cards comes out if it will be worth the performance increase at that resolution. I'm not too concerned about money but I don't want to be spending $1000 on a card, even though the GTX 690 makes me drool... I'm usually a best bang for the buck kind of buyer. And I have always owned Nvidia cards so I would prefer to stick with them, although I know some people seem to think that AMD is better for the money. Thanks for any help and advice!

Current Build:
Intel Core i7-2600k @ 4.8GHz
ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600
2 x OCZ Agility 3 120GB SATA III SSD (Raid 0)
PC Power and Cooling 750W 80 PLUS Certified
MSI GTX 470 @ 800/1600/2000
a c 180 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 30, 2013 3:11:16 PM

Gtx 670 4gb is best for for you or why not wait for new series gpu at april.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 30, 2013 3:46:37 PM

April? Last I read it was going to be June. Do you have a source? @OP A 670 would be a good choice. If you want a suggestion on monitors the Auria 27" at microcenter is $400. I have one and like it.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 30, 2013 5:32:24 PM

I would also like to see a source on the release date. I don't have a problem waiting if it's a few months but if it's going to be like 6 months, I might as well just get it now and then SLI or trade up later when the new cards come out.
m
0
l
January 30, 2013 5:37:42 PM

wanderer11 said:
April? Last I read it was going to be June. Do you have a source? @OP A 670 would be a good choice. If you want a suggestion on monitors the Auria 27" at microcenter is $400. I have one and like it.


I have looked at that monitor. I know it's a small complaint but I'm not a big fan of the way the stand and outside plastic looks. I may take my chances on ordering one I like the look of from ebay or possibly wait till Monoprice has theirs back in stock. I'm more worried about getting a card that will give me some good performance at that resolution for a while.
m
0
l
January 30, 2013 5:46:50 PM

I personally run 2 monitors at this resolution, my personal preference was Thunderbolt displays from Apple, however, as much as they are nice to look at I had to go with something that could be flipped around and what not. I went with some 27" Samsung S27A850D.

I drive them with dual eVGA GTX 690 Hydro Copper's. At this resolution with every setting at max in Farcry 3 I sometimes get low frame rates.... I'm curious what games you play? Things like Battlefield 3, WoW, Starcraft 2 I never have a problem with.
m
0
l
a c 128 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 30, 2013 5:57:16 PM

That Auria might give you the resolution your targeting, but it's definitely not very good with the colors and contrast as the higher cost ips monitors are. I took a chance on one and had it for a day before I brought it back to microcenter because I didn't like the lack of contrast. I played with the color settings and compared it to my 3D TFT and thought the TFTs colors were better. One thing about the Auria though is the viewing angle was outstanding. Also, an IPS monitor is not really a gamers monitor as it introduces a whole lot of input lag. If you play many online FPS games as I do, this might annoy you as well. If your more of a MMOstrategy or MMORPG player, this would be less of an issue for you. The lack of contrast was the deal breaker for me. I played with all of the settings and couldn't even get close to my TFTs color and contrast quality. As a result, for now, I'm sticking with my 120Hz 1080p.

I'm sure there will be some better monitors out there in the next few years that will meet the increased resolution demands of gamers and provide more real estate at a decent price. I just don't think we're there yet. Although, I did see an LG(? I think) that was basically a double monitor (3840x1080) in a single monitor showcased at CES. If it's not laggy it would seem like an interesting option.
m
0
l
January 30, 2013 6:26:35 PM

Ubercake you're the only person I've heard with issues about the contrast about the Auria... I have one and it's up there with the better monitors I've seen in terms of color/contrast/etc.

Maybe your eyes are just more sensitive to that stuff than mine, but it's leagues better than any TN panel I've used in terms of contrast, and it looks just as good as other IPS panels I've seen. I'm not sensitive to input lag so can't really comment about that. I don't notice it but that doesn't mean too much.

Anyways, the reason I'm posting is to point out that a 4GB 670 is a waste of money OP. Get a 2 GB 670 or better yet get a 7970 - the 7970 is the best card for 1440p gaming right now.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2013 7:15:45 PM

Not to highjack the thread but wth would you get 690s in SLI and turn around and play FPSs on two monitors with about an inch of bezel down the middle. Why? One - yes. Three - yes. Two - not for any reason.

Or was that a troll post and I failed to catch it...
m
0
l
January 30, 2013 11:56:28 PM

rshillshooter81 said:
I personally run 2 monitors at this resolution, my personal preference was Thunderbolt displays from Apple, however, as much as they are nice to look at I had to go with something that could be flipped around and what not. I went with some 27" Samsung S27A850D.

I drive them with dual eVGA GTX 690 Hydro Copper's. At this resolution with every setting at max in Farcry 3 I sometimes get low frame rates.... I'm curious what games you play? Things like Battlefield 3, WoW, Starcraft 2 I never have a problem with.


I'm not interested in multiple monitors, but if I went multi-monitor, I would defintely go with three. Two seems odd to me. And there's no way I could justify paying over $2k for dual 690s no matter how amazing it would be! I play games like Deus Ex HR, Skyrim, Far Cry 3, Guild Wars 2, Hitman Absolution, Civilization V, Sleeping Dogs and The Witcher 2.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 12:07:29 AM

ubercake said:
That Auria might give you the resolution your targeting, but it's definitely not very good with the colors and contrast as the higher cost ips monitors are. I took a chance on one and had it for a day before I brought it back to microcenter because I didn't like the lack of contrast. I played with the color settings and compared it to my 3D TFT and thought the TFTs colors were better. One thing about the Auria though is the viewing angle was outstanding. Also, an IPS monitor is not really a gamers monitor as it introduces a whole lot of input lag. If you play many online FPS games as I do, this might annoy you as well. If your more of a MMOstrategy or MMORPG player, this would be less of an issue for you. The lack of contrast was the deal breaker for me. I played with all of the settings and couldn't even get close to my TFTs color and contrast quality. As a result, for now, I'm sticking with my 120Hz 1080p.

I'm sure there will be some better monitors out there in the next few years that will meet the increased resolution demands of gamers and provide more real estate at a decent price. I just don't think we're there yet. Although, I did see an LG(? I think) that was basically a double monitor (3840x1080) in a single monitor showcased at CES. If it's not laggy it would seem like an interesting option.


I've read good things from most people about the Auria but like I said above, I will most likely go with something else since I don't like the look of the monitor. I'm really considering a Crossover from ebay or the one from Monoprice. I know several people who swear by the IPS monitors and you're actually one of the few people I've seen that disagree with that. But everyone has their own opinion. And with regards to input lag, I don't really play FPS games competitively online so I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the advice and explanation though!
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 12:12:48 AM

BigMack70 said:
Ubercake you're the only person I've heard with issues about the contrast about the Auria... I have one and it's up there with the better monitors I've seen in terms of color/contrast/etc.

Maybe your eyes are just more sensitive to that stuff than mine, but it's leagues better than any TN panel I've used in terms of contrast, and it looks just as good as other IPS panels I've seen. I'm not sensitive to input lag so can't really comment about that. I don't notice it but that doesn't mean too much.

Anyways, the reason I'm posting is to point out that a 4GB 670 is a waste of money OP. Get a 2 GB 670 or better yet get a 7970 - the 7970 is the best card for 1440p gaming right now.


Well, the reason I was looking at the 4GB is that it's only $10 more than the 2GB version of the card I like so I figured for $10, it can't hurt. I have seen a lot of praise for the 7970 so I definitely need to look into that but I've just always had Nvidia cards so I suppose I have somewhat of a bias towards them.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 12:16:56 AM

J_E_D_70 said:
Not to highjack the thread but wth would you get 690s in SLI and turn around and play FPSs on two monitors with about an inch of bezel down the middle. Why? One - yes. Three - yes. Two - not for any reason.

Or was that a troll post and I failed to catch it...


I agree, I don't understand the two monitors either. The middle of the screen seems most important...
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 12:18:12 AM

If it's only $10 more, you might as well do it, but there's not been any performance increase shown for a 4GB version over a 2GB one.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 1:08:43 AM

babernet_1 said:
Wait for the new 780 coming out in a month.

Here is the original Swedish article.
http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/16402-nvidia-gor-gefor...

Here's Tomshardware info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Titan-Nvidia-GK110-gpu...

Here's an expert discussing its amazing graphics power:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1354372/nvidia-gk110-titan-p...


That card is rumored to be $900 and:
Quote:
I'm not too concerned about money but I don't want to be spending $1000 on a card


Doubt the GK110 is for the OP.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 3:13:12 AM

babernet_1 said:
Wait for the new 780 coming out in a month.

Here is the original Swedish article.
http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/16402-nvidia-gor-gefor...

Here's Tomshardware info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Titan-Nvidia-GK110-gpu...

Here's an expert discussing its amazing graphics power:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1354372/nvidia-gk110-titan-p...


Is this really going to be the 780? Or will it be the 685 or something like that? Either way, $900 is definitely too expensive for me. Maybe if it was $500-600 but definitely out of my price range at $900.
m
0
l
!