High end GPU advice (@ 5120x1440)

  • 58 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#1 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for GTR12
#2 Posted by GTR12 (12814 posts) -

Titan

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#3 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
Titan
Avatar image for kraken2109
#4 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -
I wouldn't recommend playing games across 2 screens, you'll have the bezel in the middle making fps games impossible.
Avatar image for homeboylizard
#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.
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#6 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6740 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.

Avatar image for Cyberdot
#7 Posted by Cyberdot (3928 posts) -

Titan.

Avatar image for adamosmaki
#8 Posted by adamosmaki (10566 posts) -
i would say 2x670 . They should be faster than titan ( though consume more power ) and cheaper
Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#9 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 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!
Avatar image for V4LENT1NE
#10 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12901 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

Avatar image for _Matt_
#11 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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. 

Avatar image for _Matt_
#12 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#13 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for mitu123
#14 Posted by mitu123 (155214 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

Avatar image for FaustArp
#15 Posted by FaustArp (1036 posts) -

GTX Titan.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#16 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#17 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 posts) -
2 is a bad idea for many reasons, go for 1 or 3
Avatar image for lhughey
#18 Posted by lhughey (4548 posts) -
I agree.
Avatar image for _Matt_
#19 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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?

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#20 Posted by 04dcarraher (22844 posts) -
Overclocked 4gb GTX 670 in SLI.
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#21 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 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.

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
#22 Posted by deactivated-579f651eab962 (5404 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"
Avatar image for _Matt_
#23 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for ShadowDeathX
#24 Posted by ShadowDeathX (11624 posts) -
Does your monitors use Displayport or DVI-D to reach 1440p?
Avatar image for 5SI-GonePostal
#25 Posted by 5SI-GonePostal (390 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

Avatar image for 5SI-GonePostal
#26 Posted by 5SI-GonePostal (390 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

Avatar image for ShadowDeathX
#27 Posted by ShadowDeathX (11624 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.
Avatar image for andmcq
#28 Posted by andmcq (256 posts) -

titan.

Avatar image for BPoole96
#29 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 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
Avatar image for quikdash6
#30 Posted by quikdash6 (480 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.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#31 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 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

Avatar image for mitu123
#32 Posted by mitu123 (155214 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

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#33 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6740 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

Avatar image for GioVela2010
#34 Posted by GioVela2010 (4726 posts) -
F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz
Avatar image for mitu123
#35 Posted by mitu123 (155214 posts) -

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

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#36 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz  GioVela2010

dem bezels

Avatar image for MuD3
#37 Posted by MuD3 (2091 posts) -
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]F it Go 5400x1920 @ 120hz

i wish i was rich just for this....
Avatar image for _Matt_
#38 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#39 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#40 Posted by _Matt_ (10439 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.

Avatar image for horgen
#41 Posted by Horgen (116760 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.
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#42 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 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.

Avatar image for mitu123
#43 Posted by mitu123 (155214 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.

Avatar image for Elann2008
#45 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 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.
Avatar image for Elann2008
#46 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 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.
Avatar image for mitu123
#47 Posted by mitu123 (155214 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

Avatar image for Elann2008
#48 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 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:

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#49 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 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

Avatar image for mitu123
#50 Posted by mitu123 (155214 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