High end GPU advice (@ 5120x1440)

  • 58 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

Hey Guys, 

While I am not building for a couple of months, I am wanting to get some advice on graphics cards. I am building a high end rig, for both gaming and rendering, udk, etc.

 

I will be needing to have a good enough graphics setup to power 2 - 2560 x 1440 resolution monitors at 5120 x 1440, so would like to be able to play modern and new games at this resolution too (I play anything from Skyrim, to Bioshock, to Battlefield, Crysis 3, etc...)

 

I am also wanting to build a system that is PhysX ready so Nvidia card is a must (i don't want to mess around with a smaller dedicated PhysX card), and as a bonus I am wanting to make my system as quiet and cool as possible. So would rather choose a graphics setup with already decent cooling.

 

What would be the best graphics setup, considering I would have about £900 to spare for a GPU setup:

- 4GB GTX690 (I'm guessing 2GB VRam is not enough for modern games at this resolution?)   (About £750)

- 2 x 4GB GTX 670    (About £800)

- 2 x 4GB GTX 680    (A bit out of budget, would be about £1000)    

 

Or any other suggestions? Open to most suggestions? Thanks for your help guys.

#2 Posted by GTR12 (9070 posts) -

Titan

#3 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3555 posts) -
Titan
#4 Posted by kraken2109 (12978 posts) -
I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible.
#5 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -
Titan is only 20% faster than a 7970 and a GTX 680 so it is the worst option unless you SLi (2000$). But in a couple of months maybe the next-gen of cards will be announced. For now, GTX 670 4GB SLi with a good OC is the best.
#6 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

only good nvidia option for that high of a resolution is the titan.  The 680/670/660ti etc start choking at anything above 1080p due to the low memory bandwidth.  The amount of vram doesn't matter if the rate at which its being used up is lagging behind the rest of the specs.  So yeah if physx is a must for you then titan is the best option.  If you don't mind AMD, then the radeon 7970 and 7950 are champs, they handle higher resolutions really well.

#7 Posted by Cyberdot (3514 posts) -

Titan.

#8 Posted by adamosmaki (9436 posts) -
i would say 2x670 . They should be faster than titan ( though consume more power ) and cheaper
#9 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3555 posts) -

only good nvidia option for that high of a resolution is the titan.  The 680/670/660ti etc start choking at anything above 1080p due to the low memory bandwidth.  The amount of vram doesn't matter if the rate at which its being used up is lagging behind the rest of the specs.  So yeah if physx is a must for you then titan is the best option.  If you don't mind AMD, then the radeon 7970 and 7950 are champs, they handle higher resolutions really well.

blaznwiipspman1
You've really got to stop trying to bash Nvidia every single chance you get, it's ugly and pathetic. I game at 1440 and get no choking with my 2GB cards!
#10 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -

only good nvidia option for that high of a resolution is the titan.  The 680/670/660ti etc start choking at anything above 1080p due to the low memory bandwidth.  The amount of vram doesn't matter if the rate at which its being used up is lagging behind the rest of the specs.  So yeah if physx is a must for you then titan is the best option.  If you don't mind AMD, then the radeon 7970 and 7950 are champs, they handle higher resolutions really well.

blaznwiipspman1

mma_facepalm_gif.gif

#11 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

i would say 2x670 . They should be faster than titan ( though consume more power ) and cheaperadamosmaki

 

This was my current line of thinking. Though would probably be the least futureproof of all the setups, as cannot add a third (motherboard will not allow), and drivers won't push much more out of these. 

#12 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible.kraken2109

 

Very true. Well I guess if that annoys me I will just use one of the monitors for games.

#13 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

only good nvidia option for that high of a resolution is the titan.  The 680/670/660ti etc start choking at anything above 1080p due to the low memory bandwidth.  The amount of vram doesn't matter if the rate at which its being used up is lagging behind the rest of the specs.  So yeah if physx is a must for you then titan is the best option.  If you don't mind AMD, then the radeon 7970 and 7950 are champs, they handle higher resolutions really well.

blaznwiipspman1

 

While I do like AMD (current rig even has an AMD card), it is quite important that I have Nvidia, as I will be developing some things with PhysX in the coming months.

#14 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible._Matt_

 

Very true. Well I guess if that annoys me I will just use one of the monitors for games.

You should go triple monitor setup.=O

#15 Posted by FaustArp (1038 posts) -

GTX Titan.

#16 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible.mitu123

 

Very true. Well I guess if that annoys me I will just use one of the monitors for games.

You should go triple monitor setup.=O

 

I would love to. But at the moment I am prioritising 1440p monitors over 3 monitors. If I had 3 monitors I just wouldn't be able to afford 1440p ones.

#17 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3555 posts) -
2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3
#18 Posted by lhughey (4222 posts) -
I agree.
#19 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3acanofcoke

 

Many reasons? Coul.d you please clarify? I mean outside of gaming can be difficult with a frame right in the middle, what other reasons is it not great to have 2 monitors?

#20 Posted by 04dcarraher (19171 posts) -
Overclocked 4gb GTX 670 in SLI.
#21 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3acanofcoke

I have 2 monitors and it is far superior to 1.  I do only game on one of them though.

#22 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3555 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3_Matt_

 

Many reasons? Coul.d you please clarify? I mean outside of gaming can be difficult with a frame right in the middle, what other reasons is it not great to have 2 monitors?

Ok I might have overshot with the word "many"
#23 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3acanofcoke

 

Many reasons? Coul.d you please clarify? I mean outside of gaming can be difficult with a frame right in the middle, what other reasons is it not great to have 2 monitors?

Ok I might have overshot with the word "many"

 

Ah ok, that's fine then :) . 

Maybe I will just game on one of the monitors then.

#24 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10563 posts) -
Does your monitors use Displayport or DVI-D to reach 1440p?
#25 Posted by 5SI-GonePostal (355 posts) -

I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible.kraken2109

This

3 screens ok, but this isnt supported by all games - but all the ones you named i wouldnt play on 2 screens

#26 Posted by 5SI-GonePostal (355 posts) -

Also what are you doing with PhysX?  As to be honest this will be more and likely phased out over the next couple of years certainly game wise in favor of better physics engines

#27 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10563 posts) -

Also what are you doing with PhysX?  As to be honest this will be more and likely phased out over the next couple of years certainly game wise in favor of better physics engines

5SI-GonePostal
He prob. means CUDA.
#28 Posted by andmcq (259 posts) -

titan.

#29 Posted by BPoole96 (22784 posts) -
There is a 6GB Sapphire 7970 that you may want to consider. I don't really see how you could play most games on just 2 screens though
#30 Posted by quikdash6 (412 posts) -
My god. Do all of you use your PCs for nothing but gaming? He said he'll be doing rendering and other intensive things outside of gaming. Being able to use more than one monitor for rendering or editing is so much more productive.
#31 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2569 posts) -

My god. Do all of you use your PCs for nothing but gaming? He said he'll be doing rendering and other intensive things outside of gaming. Being able to use more than one monitor for rendering or editing is so much more productive.quikdash6

pretty much :P

#32 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

My god. Do all of you use your PCs for nothing but gaming? He said he'll be doing rendering and other intensive things outside of gaming. Being able to use more than one monitor for rendering or editing is so much more productive.quikdash6
Well I did suggest 3 monitors.=O

#33 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

only good nvidia option for that high of a resolution is the titan.  The 680/670/660ti etc start choking at anything above 1080p due to the low memory bandwidth.  The amount of vram doesn't matter if the rate at which its being used up is lagging behind the rest of the specs.  So yeah if physx is a must for you then titan is the best option.  If you don't mind AMD, then the radeon 7970 and 7950 are champs, they handle higher resolutions really well.

acanofcoke

You've really got to stop trying to bash Nvidia every single chance you get, it's ugly and pathetic. I game at 1440 and get no choking with my 2GB cards!

I recommended him the titan, and since he needs cuda the 7970 and 7950 are out.  its true that at higher resolutions the geforce 680 and 670 start to choke up compared to the 7970 and 7950, its not an opinion that much is pretty much fact.  he wants to game at ultra high esolutions, double that of 1440p so yeah te best nvidia card that fits his criteria is the titan

#34 Posted by GioVela2010 (4018 posts) -
F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz
#35 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz  GioVela2010
5 screens? Whoa.

#36 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz  GioVela2010

dem bezels

#37 Posted by MuD3 (1201 posts) -
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz

i wish i was rich just for this....
#38 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

Does your monitors use Displayport or DVI-D to reach 1440p?ShadowDeathX

 

DVI-D almost certainly. I think Display Port is a potential option, but most GPUs only have a single display port anyway.

#39 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

Also what are you doing with PhysX?  As to be honest this will be more and likely phased out over the next couple of years certainly game wise in favor of better physics engines

ShadowDeathX

He prob. means CUDA.

 

Nah PhysX too. I am going to be developing a project in UDK with PhysX. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

#40 Posted by _Matt_ (8843 posts) -

I am currently thinking 2x 4GB GTX 670s.


Can someone confirm that is definitely worth investing in the 4GB version? If we assume I have 2 1440p monitors always on, but only play on a single 2560x1440 monitor for the majority of games?



Edit: I'm just asking, because i have been looking at some reviews that suggest that 9 times out of 10 the 2GB GTX 670 is actually faster benchmarks in games, even at 5760 x 1080, so seems the extra 2GB vRAM is more hindrance, even at that resolution. The only real exception seems to be in Skyrim.

#41 Posted by Horgen (110021 posts) -
They should be equally fast until you reach VRAM bottlenecks for the 2GB version. Which you will rather quickly on a 2560*1440 monitor.
#42 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Does your monitors use Displayport or DVI-D to reach 1440p?_Matt_

 

DVI-D almost certainly. I think Display Port is a potential option, but most GPUs only have a single display port anyway.

AMD video cards usually have more than 1.  For instance my 6950 has 2 display ports.

#43 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz  GummiRaccoon

dem bezels

Thin bezels aren't too bad, but I would rather game with up to 3 monitors.

#45 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
They should be equally fast until you reach VRAM bottlenecks for the 2GB version. Which you will rather quickly on a 2560*1440 monitor. horgen123
At 2560x1440, 2GB vram territory is absolutely fine unless you are turning anti-aliasing up beyond 4xAA. Anything more than that, I do agree that 2GB vram will become very limited. You can read more about it here.
#46 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz ]mitu123

dem bezels

Thin bezels aren't too bad, but I would rather game with up to 3 monitors.

I don't see what's wrong with the bezels? Unless you just don't like bezels at all. Bezels aren't going to get thinner than that. If you absolutely must not have bezels, you can get one of those widescreen curved monitors that cost a ton of $$$ like this one.
#47 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

dem bezels

Elann2008

Thin bezels aren't too bad, but I would rather game with up to 3 monitors.

I don't see what's wrong with the bezels? Unless you just don't like bezels at all. Bezels aren't going to get thinner than that. If you absolutely must not have bezels, you can get one of those widescreen curved monitors that cost a ton of $$$ like this one.

These are the most thin bezels I've seen.

samsung.jpg

#48 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="mitu123"]Thin bezels aren't too bad, but I would rather game with up to 3 monitors.

mitu123

I don't see what's wrong with the bezels? Unless you just don't like bezels at all. Bezels aren't going to get thinner than that. If you absolutely must not have bezels, you can get one of those widescreen curved monitors that cost a ton of $$$ like this one.

These are the most thin bezels I've seen.

samsung.jpg

I'm not a millionaire Mitu. :P lol jk There are no bezels there. hehe  What is this called? D:

#49 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

dem bezels

Elann2008

Thin bezels aren't too bad, but I would rather game with up to 3 monitors.

I don't see what's wrong with the bezels? Unless you just don't like bezels at all. Bezels aren't going to get thinner than that. If you absolutely must not have bezels, you can get one of those widescreen curved monitors that cost a ton of $$$ like this one.

I like how thin those bezels are

#50 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"] I don't see what's wrong with the bezels? Unless you just don't like bezels at all. Bezels aren't going to get thinner than that. If you absolutely must not have bezels, you can get one of those widescreen curved monitors that cost a ton of $$$ like this one.Elann2008

These are the most thin bezels I've seen.

samsung.jpg

I'm not a millionaire Mitu. :P lol jk There are no bezels there. hehe  What is this called? D:

Samsung UD22B, they're a little over 2k bucks. That's 6k bucks for triple setup.XD