2560x1440 single gtx 670?

As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
No problem at all unless you are one of those concerned with maxing everything with an over usage of AA and expecting over 60FPS. With a single 670 you can play Crysis 3 on very high with FXAA and hold around 30FPS with no major dips which is very playable for that game. With BF3 ultra settings and the FXAA injector thing you should be in the upper 40s, low 50s average.
 
should be fine for the most part. i runa gtx680 on a 2600k @ 4.5ghz, it maxed all games I play just fine (except crysis 3). I run it on a catleap (2560x1440).

i haven't played bf3 yet but in general, a gtx670 should be able to run over 95% of the modern games on the market just fine.
 
depends on the person. i have 1440p and one 670 works for most things but i am actually going to add a second 670 as i prefer max settings with 60fps, and ffxiv is about to come out

as for bf3 though it runs pretty damn good for one 670. i cant remember if i turn msaa off or not but 670 works pretty damn well in bf3
 
The 2 gig is fine for now as long as your cool FXAA in games like Crysis and BF3. I've been testing Crysis 3 and Ultra High w/ FXAA is 1900MB. I don't think the newer games coming out will let you get away with 2 gigs. I'd sell your 670 for ~300 and pick up a 3gig 7970.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
The 2 gig is fine for now as long as your cool FXAA in games like Crysis and BF3. I've been testing Crysis 3 and Ultra High w/ FXAA is 1900MB. I don't think the newer games coming out will let you get away with 2 gigs. I'd sell your 670 for ~300 and pick up a 3gig 7970.
Click to expand...

Why in gods name would he do that
 
mrtheshaggy said:
The 2 gig is fine for now as long as your cool FXAA in games like Crysis and BF3. I've been testing Crysis 3 and Ultra High w/ FXAA is 1900MB. I don't think the newer games coming out will let you get away with 2 gigs. I'd sell your 670 for ~300 and pick up a 3gig 7970.
Click to expand...

Allocated ram is not used ram. There is a really big difference. There are plenty of threads out there about that.
 
dremic said:
Why in gods name would he do that
Click to expand...

Why would he sell his current card from the exact amount of money to get a brand new card (with a big game bundle) that will outperform his current card and have 50% more ram?

Gee, I don't know.
 
Cecil said:
Allocated ram is not used ram. There is a really big difference. There are plenty of threads out there about that.
Click to expand...

I've played around with this using 1GB cards in SLI, 2GB cards in Xfire, and two different 3GB cards in Crysis 3 and BF3. Based on what your saying the 1GB should have sucked while the 2GB should have been fine. However, the 2GB sucked almost as much as the 1GB setup when I ramped the hell out of AA and textures to 2GB+. Which would suggest your allocation claims are wrong, at least with BF3 + Crysis 3.

I'd highly recommend at least 3GB for 1440.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
Why would he sell his current card from the exact amount of money to get a brand new card (with a big game bundle) that will outperform his current card and have 50% more ram?

Gee, I don't know.
Click to expand...

the 7970 is marginally better then a 670.. you will also have a hard time getting 300 for a 670 right now more like 250. HardOCP also doesnt even recommend a new purchase for people using any 6xx series cards to the next generation let alone the same. they also state in almost every review that SLI is significantly better then crossfire making 7970 terrible for future proofing. also he mentioned he plays BF3 and that is a heavily favored Nvidia title. 670 beats a 7970 everytime

mrtheshaggy said:
I've played around with this using 1GB cards in SLI, 2GB cards in Xfire, and two different 3GB cards in Crysis 3 and BF3. Based on what your saying the 1GB should have sucked while the 2GB should have been fine. However, the 2GB sucked almost as much as the 1GB setup when I ramped the hell out of AA and textures to 2GB+. Which would suggest your allocation claims are wrong, at least with BF3 + Crysis 3.

I'd highly recommend at least 3GB for 1440.
Click to expand...

its obvious there is little basis to your thoughts on this matter.






@OP

please do not listen to this terrible advice, your 670 is only a few percent lower then a 7970 and you could spend the same cash on a second and mop every single game up @ 1440p.

you will not come close to using all of your vram @ 1440p

i have a source and its me.. same card.. same resolution. some people will use skyrim as a basis for their argument. theyd still be wrong.
 
Acceptable yes. Ideal No.


I have the same card and use it for 2650x1600 and 6060x1080 and BF3 has to be cranked down to low settings to get a stable 60 FPS on either.
 
stevedave said:
Acceptable yes. Ideal No.


I have the same card and use it for 2650x1600 and 6060x1080 and BF3 has to be cranked down to low settings to get a stable 60 FPS on either.
Click to expand...

maybe with MSAA

with only FXAA on ultra im pretty much sitting pretty close to 55-60 ish
 
dremic said:
the 7970 is marginally better then a 670.. you will also have a hard time getting 300 for a 670 right now more like 250. HardOCP also doesnt even recommend a new purchase for people using any 6xx series cards to the next generation let alone the same. they also state in almost every review that SLI is significantly better then crossfire making 7970 terrible for future proofing. also he mentioned he plays BF3 and that is a heavily favored Nvidia title. 670 beats a 7970 everytime



its obvious there is little basis to your thoughts on this matter.






@OP

please do not listen to this terrible advice, your 670 is only a few percent lower then a 7970 and you could spend the same cash on a second and mop every single game up @ 1440p.

you will not come close to using all of your vram @ 1440p

i have a source and its me.. same card.. same resolution. some people will use skyrim as a basis for their argument. theyd still be wrong.
Click to expand...

How is there little basis for my thoughts? I've tested three different denominations of RAM. My argument is focused on future games. Your argument is focused on current games. He plans to use it on future games. What I am saying is in no, way, shape, or form terrible. It's a logical option, which is something he was open to.

Even if he can only get $250, the resell of the AMD game bundle would compensate.

Another 2GB 670 for SLI on a 1440? Moronic.
 
dremic said:
maybe with MSAA

with only FXAA on ultra im pretty much sitting pretty close to 55-60 ish
Click to expand...

Even if I turn it all off if I crank it up above medium I get sub 50's. And this is with a 3930k @ 4.5.

6060x1080 hits a bit harder than 2650x1600 though so I can do medium with 2650 and low with 6060.

Ultra dips me below 50 very often....and on maps like Oman it even drops to 30's.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
How is there little basis for my thoughts? I've tested three different denominations of RAM. My argument is focused on future games. Your argument is focused on current games. He plans to use it on future games. What I am saying is in no, way, shape, or form terrible. It's a logical option, which is something he was open to.

Even if he can only get $250, the resell of the AMD game bundle would compensate.

Another 2GB 670 for SLI on a 1440? Moronic.
Click to expand...

So just to clarify you are making a suggestion based on games that aren't released yet? Need I say more? Okay I will.

Lets say we are going for future games. Still 7970 is a shit choice, it is almost the same power and CANNOT COMPETE with SLI in terms of crossfire.

There is no proof that 2gb of VRAM isnt enough for future games. there is plenty of headroom even now. idk if you are testing using msi afterburner or what, but that allocated ram on there isnt a reflection of what vram is actually being used its cached. Telling somebody to sell a 2GB card and get a 7970 of equal power for an extra bit of memory bandwidth and an extra gig of unnecessary vram is terrible.


stop giving bad advice.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
I've played around with this using 1GB cards in SLI, 2GB cards in Xfire, and two different 3GB cards in Crysis 3 and BF3. Based on what your saying the 1GB should have sucked while the 2GB should have been fine. However, the 2GB sucked almost as much as the 1GB setup when I ramped the hell out of AA and textures to 2GB+. Which would suggest your allocation claims are wrong, at least with BF3 + Crysis 3.

I'd highly recommend at least 3GB for 1440.
Click to expand...

You must not know what allocation is. It works similar to Window's SuperFetch. The more ram you have available, the more ram is allocated "just in case".

So if a certain scenario requires 500MB of VRAM, but you have a 1GB card, it will allocate 900MB-1GB "just in case" a future scenario needs more then 500MB. If you have a 2GB card it will allocate more because more is available.


There is a program that shows what ram is actually being used by each app. Background and Aero use quite a bit of VRAM as well. Turning off Aero will clear up around 200MB or more in some situations.


With a single 670 2GB at 1200/6500, I would maintain around 30FPS in Crysis 3 on Very High with FXAA. Usually in the 40s, never lower then mid 20s. Max allocated memory usage was around 1900MB, but that ONLY happened during cutscenes. Actual ram usage during game play with Aero off was around 1400-1600MB depending on the area of the game.



There is no situation where a 670 will be able to use more then 2GB of VRAM. At that point, the card will be rendering well below playable frame rates. Future titles wouldn't be any different. I tried with a surround setup using modded Skyrim, BF3, and Crysis 3 to get to a point where the game was playable, but VRAM usage was over 1800MB. Couldn't happen.


Then with AMD you have the heavily debated issue of partial frames, frame latencies, poor xfire, no PhysX, etc....
 
Ok, I didn't realize future game releases will not have more intensive requirements. You might wanna call up AMD and Nvidia and let them know they don't need to make new hardware anymore.
 
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html


The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

Now the setup could benefit from triple monitor setups at 5760x1080 (which is a 6 Mpixels resolution), but even there I doubt if 4 GB is really something you'd need to spend money on. It might make a difference at 16xAA and the most stringent games, or if you game in 3D Stereo and triple monitor gaming -- I mean sure -- at any point graphics memory can and will run out. There's one exception to the rule, and that's Skyrim all beefed, tweaked and modded upwards. But the universal question remains, is it worth it investing in that extra memor? This card is 90 EUR more expensive. Well that answer depends on pricing versus your demands and requriements really, the extra memory certainly won't hurt that's for sure, but sure -- the benefits remains small.
Click to expand...


2gb is fine now and it will be fine for a long while.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
How is there little basis for my thoughts? I've tested three different denominations of RAM. My argument is focused on future games. Your argument is focused on current games. He plans to use it on future games. What I am saying is in no, way, shape, or form terrible. It's a logical option, which is something he was open to.

Even if he can only get $250, the resell of the AMD game bundle would compensate.

Another 2GB 670 for SLI on a 1440? Moronic.
Click to expand...

Sigh, why do people on here think those amd game bundles have some sort of high value? You will not make much from them ($30 at most), and as someone who has owned a 670, 680, 7950, and 7970 before, the OP won't notice any differences switching his 670 to a 7970.

He will only notice a boost in performance, if he was to pick up a 780. Otherwise, he is fine using a single 670 at 2560x1440.

Btw, sli is smoother than crossfire in my experience. There's nothing "moronic" about him picking up a second 670.
 
tonyftw said:
Sigh, why do people on here think those amd game bundles have some sort of high value? You will not make much from them ($30 at most), and as someone who has owned a 670, 680, 7950, and 7970 before, the OP won't notice any differences switching his 670 to a 7970.

He will only notice a boost in performance, if he was to pick up a 780. Otherwise, he is fine using a single 670 at 2560x1440.

Btw, sli is smoother than crossfire in my experience. There's nothing "moronic" about him picking up a second 670.
Click to expand...

there is literally heaps of data that proves SLI is significantly better then Xfire. AMD tends to be a better single card solution but considering what is available now and what he has already adding a second 670 in SLI would be insanely good bang for his buck and the ram wont hinder him.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
Ok, I didn't realize future game releases will not have more intensive requirements. You might wanna call up AMD and Nvidia and let them know they don't need to make new hardware anymore.
Click to expand...

Uhm, I hate to be 'that guy' but you realize that AMD has outright said that their current cards are more than enough for today's and future games and they aren't planning on releasing successors anytime soon. Nvidia are literally rebadging 680s and selling them as 770s. So your sarcasm is correct: Nvidia and AMD both already know that most future games won't need more power (for now), and they AREN'T working on new hardware...
 
dremic said:
there is literally heaps of data that proves SLI is significantly better then Xfire. AMD tends to be a better single card solution but considering what is available now and what he has already adding a second 670 in SLI would be insanely good bang for his buck and the ram wont hinder him.
Click to expand...

Not trying to discredit you dremic. But my roommate has two EVGA 680 SLI rig right next to me and it's nothing special in multi GPU aspect, compared to battlefield 3 which we both play regularly. Maybe it's true for other games, but I can say with confidence that it's not true with battlefield 3.
 
Single 670 is fine unless you need 60fps constant at max settings and 2-4xMSAA to be happy with your game, I played all sorts of crap with my 670's at 1440p and 1200p surround and it did fine as long as I wasn't expecting tri-sli performance numbers out of it.
 
Mr Mean said:
Not trying to discredit you dremic. But my roommate has two EVGA 680 SLI rig right next to me and it's nothing special in multi GPU aspect, compared to battlefield 3 which we both play regularly. Maybe it's true for other games, but I can say with confidence that it's not true with battlefield 3.
Click to expand...

no doubt, the best way to know for sure is to see it yourself! just going by what HardOCP says about Xfire vs SLI.


dont be offended I am not biased I think AMD makes amazing cards. especially the 7970. it was just a bad suggestion for the OP
 
FWIW, I had a 670 that played at 1440p admirably. I now upgraded to a 780 and its a beast, but the 670 actually does a good job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top