Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes. Your 680's won't even run 2560x1440 that well unless you turn down AA.. but who buys 2 $500 gpu's and a $1500 monitor for medium settings?
I don't completely agree. Are you talking GPU power wise or VRAM? I ran 680 SLI at 1600p and have used 1600p for several years. 680 sli killed it at 1600p, it ran everything pretty much great. I suspect it would be pretty damn good at 3440x1440 as well. VRAM wise? VRAM is not an issue with up to 8X MSAA at any game I threw at it with 680 SLI when I owned them.. ......
No offense, but everyone wants to believe their setup runs "just fine." With a $999 monitor, you should be striving for maximum quality. G-sync wouldn't exist if 40fps lows and 80fps highs were acceptable... you want 60fps MINIMUMS to avoid a compromised experience.
I've used 670 PE SLI at 1440p, GTX690 at 1600p, 290X CF at 1600p, 780 SLI at 1440p, 780 3-way at 1440p, and 780 Ti SLI at 1440p 120hz. 670 PE is not enough. 690 is not enough. If you play demanding games, you'll get below 60 fps and what's the point of that? And yes, AA IS noticeable at these resolutions. My 780 Ti's are tapped out on Vram (using over 3000mb regularly) at 1440p btw.
your resolution is 33% more difficult to run than 2560x1440p. You decide what is "good enough" for your money.
Correct. It should be noted that different cards use VRAM in different ways; just because a game reports 3GB in use doesn't mean that 3GB is actually needed. Heck, I had a bud with a Titan that reported more VRAM in use than my 780 setup in the same scene, same settings. The card isn't clearing the VRAM cache as frequently with more VRAM because it doesn't need to, essentially. For instance, a 680 with 2GB of VRAM will utilize more efficient algorithms for VRAM allocation - For example, I remember more than a year ago I did comparisons between 7970CF and 680SLI in BF3. I could make the 7970CF setup use up to 3GB. Which was confusing because it was both slower and more choppy than the 680 sli setup in BF3. What I found was, that the game and drivers intelligently allocate VRAM so the card does not use more than it has. Basically, the way to think of it is, a 780 with 3GB of VRAM does not need to be as efficient as would a 2GB card. But games and drivers are "intelligent" about VRAM use. If MSI afterburner reports 3GB in use with a 780, that doesn't mean the game requires 3GB of VRAM. Games are intelligent about VRAM allocation, essentially. If you have a 2GB card, the game will know it - keep in mind that VERY few PC gamers have the latest and greatest 3GB cards. The more high end enthusiasts do, but by and large that is less than 2% of all PC gamers.
Generally speaking when you're at an absolute VRAM wall, the game will fail and crash. You can do this by trying Far Cry 3 at 7680x1440 ( I tried this once) with 8X MSAA and SGSSAA enabled in nvidia inspector. It will crash and fail, will not run due to VRAM. Anyway, i'm 100% sure he will be fine. He could hit a VRAM wall, but IMO, only if he uses excessive levels of SSAA. SSAA shouldn't ever be really used unless you're the type of gamer that loves overkill settings that kill your framerate. I am not in that category, but some are.
yes. Your 680's won't even run 2560x1440 that well unless you turn down AA.. but who buys 2 $500 gpu's and a $1500 monitor for medium settings?
False,my 680 runs games on 1440p at high just fine. BF4 maxed out and i get 50-60 fps. Yeah games like Metro LL will need to be turned down some,but most games run fine.