BF3 at 5760x1200

[allen5055]

I want to run BF3 in 5760x1200 resolution and I'm considering whether to get a Nvidia 680 or a 7970 which I can pick up from the FS forum for about $430 shipped. I know that the Nvidia cards are faster, especially for BF3, but considering the $70 price difference if I buy a used 7970 that may make the difference worth it. Also, I've noticed that most of the reviews for multi-monitor setups do not show the overclocked 7970 compared to the overclocked 680.

So my question is, can I run BF3 at the highest settings with either an overclocked 680 or 7970 at 5760x1200 resolution? If you were me, would you get a 680 for $500 or a used 7970 for $430?

 

[BIGGRIMTIM]

I run BF3 at that resolution with a single 7970. As long as I don't use AA the game runs fine. At the high resolution bf3 will use more than 2GB of the frame buffer.

 

[257Tony]

I run BF3 at that resolution with a single 7970. As long as I don't use AA the game runs fine. At the high resolution bf3 will use more than 2GB of the frame buffer.

Yeah it will use more than 2gb, on your 7970. On the 680 it will use less, and run faster....
Get the 680, its the better card.

 

[kuyaglen]

A new 680 would be under warranty, a used 7970 would not.

 

[wand3r3r]

Yeah it will use more than 2gb, on your 7970. On the 680 it will use less, and run faster....
Get the 680, its the better card.

For the $70 I think it's a toss up. The HD 7970 is back down to where it should be relative to the performance, which closes when overclocked and high resolution.

BF3@5760x1200
GTX 680 Min: 27 Max: 57 Avg: 38.3
HD 7970 Min: 23 Max: 57 Avg: 36.3
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review/10

I'm actually surprised at the numbers, I thought it was a little wider discrepancy considering BF3 runs better on Nvidia architecture(s).

Actually here there is a pretty big difference with a single display.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/13

A new 680 would be under warranty, a used 7970 would not.

Correction, an MSI or Asus HD 7970 would be under warranty as they are based on serial numbers. I would only get one with a warranty.

A little warranty refreshment for you.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArCtGVODPUTtdEdEUjRiSFdyckZ1Q1dGNUI3bkd5R1E#gid=0

 

[SixFootDuo]

I have both the GTX 680 and HD 7970. I'm having a real problem seeing the difference in performance between the two video cards. This is with a single 1080p display. both are fast.

 

[royo]

The GPUs are very close in performance so it may be hard to notice differences.

 

[allen5055]

Yeah I know that usually Nvidia has a large advantage in BF3 but that the advantage shrinks when both cards are overclocked and shrinks even more at very high resolutions.

I want to be able to play all games in eyefinity but since most games are much less taxing than BF3 I figure BF3 is all that matters. I also could get a 7970 that was used but still had a warranty since some manufacturers do it by serial number. Right now I'm thinking I would go with the 7970 due to the price difference and higher VRAM. $70 is 15% of the price.

 

[moocow0463]

Yeah it will use more than 2gb, on your 7970. On the 680 it will use less, and run faster....
Get the 680, its the better card.

this statement is not true dispite what the reviews/benchmarks say the 7970 and 680 performance is almost identical side bye side

A new 680 would be under warranty, a used 7970 would not.

this is not true either the cards have only been out since January factory warranty still applies and certain cards have transferable extended warranty

The GPUs are very close in performance so it may be hard to notice differences.

QFT^

get the card you can for the best price right now, the difference at that resolution or an resolution right now is miniscule with both cards overclocked then run within a few fps of each other dont let the nvidia or ati fan boys trick you into saying which is better. simply by the one that has the best value!

 

[kingduqc]

Don't forget that those 680 consume less and make less noise.

 

[Florin22xxl]

Like there is a big difference im power between the tow cards its not like the 480 was and people still buyed those vulcanos lol im guessing someone with 3x monitors doesnt give a damn about his power bill lol

 

[Astrodave]

My dual 480's can run it at over 30fps at that rez but it runs like ass, hitches a lot and feels like 10 fps to me. I highly doubt a single 680 can run it at that rez. You'll need 2 to get playable frame rates and be competitive.

 

[Astrodave]

I have both the GTX 680 and HD 7970. I'm having a real problem seeing the difference in performance between the two video cards. This is with a single 1080p display. both are fast.

Well la dee da your majesty. Aren't you just too cool for school!

 

[CrazyRob]

I'm running BF3 at 5960x1080 on my single 680 overclocked +100 core /+500 memory.
At full ultra settings, it was a little laggy, dropping down the MSAA to 2x but everything else at max smoothed things out nicely for me. System specs in sign.

 

[allen5055]

Isn't there a new form of MSAA that you can use that's equivalent in quality to 4x but uses a lot less processing power?

 

[charlievoviii]

GTX680 will be better choice for you.

 

[sk3tch]

I'm running BF3 at 5960x1080 on my single 680 overclocked +100 core /+500 memory.
At full ultra settings, it was a little laggy, dropping down the MSAA to 2x but everything else at max smoothed things out nicely for me. System specs in sign.

I don't see how this is possible. I'm running 3x680 at that resolution (and Ultra with 2x MSAA) and not seeing 60 FPS or better solidly. It's often 100 FPS+ but I get dips below 60 FPS fairly frequently depending on activity. This is MP.

 

[Astrodave]

I agree. My dual 480's are 10-20% faster than a single 680 and I can't even play at that rez in high settings with some medium settings, no AA and get acceptable FPS. The FPS is 30-40 but it's laggy as hell and by no means can I be competitive in that.

 

[CrazyRob]

I agree. My dual 480's are 10-20% faster than a single 680 and I can't even play at that rez in high settings with some medium settings, no AA and get acceptable FPS. The FPS is 30-40 but it's laggy as hell and by no means can I be competitive in that.

sure, dual 480's have more raw gpu compute power, but you're likely running into memory issues, causing lag. My dual 570's that I just replaced could barely run 5760x1080 at medium. I have not been experiencing any lag in my multiplayer sessions at these settings.

As for sketches concerns, I said it was smooth, I didn't say my minimum was over 60fps, lol. *edit* Also, looking at heatlesses results, looks like his minimum framerate went down when he went from 2 to 3 cards, so there's definitely some driver work to be done.

 

[oldmanbal]

under 40fps avg is unplayable imo, especially in an online fps. Plus those numbers are probably coming from single player which isn't even close to what a 64 man map does to your gpu. You really want your minimum fps to be over 35 or 40 to deliver something remotely close to a smooth experience.

You will need either 2 680s or 2 7970s to get a decent experience at that res. Probably not even maxed out in the settings. I got 2 7970s just to run 2560x1600 without crappy minimum fps lags. I really WOULD NOT recommend a 680 or 7970 to run your resolution as it would just be a stuttering mess in multiplayer. Drop in 2 and see if you can get some decent frames at medium to high with no aa.

 

[shad0w4life]

Don't forget that those 680 consume less and make less noise.

They also run hotter due to less agressive fan settings hence less noise.

if you look on youtube a guy puts his camera up to both cards can't notice a difference.

And again, SOMETIMES consumes less power, not always.


Don't weigh a buying decision on those factors.

 

[CrazyRob]

I just retested, actually watching framerate this time instead of just playing the game. With 0xmsaa but post process aa set to high, in a full 64 player server, I average in the mid 40's, with the infrequent low of 35 fps. With 2xmsaa it averages in the mid 30's with a low of about 28.

I've gone back and forth between the two, and I don't think the 2xmsaa is worth the performance hit, but if you don't mind the lack of msaa, I still feel 5960x1080 is very playable on the single gtx680.

*edit* granted, the OP wants 5760x1200 which is about half a mp more pixels. That may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, lol.

 

[Don Juan Formaggio]

I just retested, actually watching framerate this time instead of just playing the game. With 0xmsaa but post process aa set to high, in a full 64 player server, I average in the mid 40's, with the infrequent low of 35 fps. With 2xmsaa it averages in the mid 30's with a low of about 28.

I see things like this, and it makes me wonder whether or not getting one of these powerhouses is really worth it if your end goal is to run Surround at that resolution with an "acceptable" framerate. For me, I'd want to work towards 50fps as my low...if that's what I'm shooting for, though, would it just make more sense to get a new motherboard that does x16/x16 and crossfire a couple 7850s? Or just wait until a 4GB version of the GTX 680 comes out?

 

[dook43]

7970 average oc is max CCC limits, 1125/1575, and that beats a 680 at average 680 OCs. I get 40-50 fps at 6080x1200, All ultra, FXAA High, 0xMSAA. It's great.

 

[Don Juan Formaggio]

That sounds pretty acceptable to me. Gah, I've stuck with ATI so long, and now NVIDIA is surging with this 680, everyone is going nuts about it...I just don't know which would be better for multi-monitor gaming. Needs more benchmarks before I commit one way or the other, I guess.

 

[dook43]

For BF3 and considering overclocking, I'd go AMD. Other TWIMTBP games will more favor Nvidia.