Optimal card for an i5 2500k and ~1920x1080?

T

thecrafter

I have LOVED the Cock for
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
571
680 GTX would not doubt be a waste of money. What is the best nVidia card I can buy that won't be overkill for this setup?

Thank you in advance!
 
680 certainly isn't overkill for my 2500K, maxing every setting in some games is just too tough on some older cards.

But if you're dead set against a 680, a 570 or a 560(448) are pretty powerful cards, especially at their respective pricing. you can find some 448 cores for sub 200 bucks nowadays, killer deals.
 
A 680 isn't overkill. It's raising the ceiling for when games are going to be harder to run. Think of it as an investment.
 
I agree with StricKeN, the 680 is by no means overkill.

I run a EVGA on my i5 2500k and like that I can play current games maxed out and smooth at 1080P. I went from the 7950 to the 680 and am very happy with the change.

If you can afford a 680 get it, if you can't go with the 560(448) or a pair of those.
 
680 GTX would not be overkill, it will still not 100% max every game out today. I don't think an overclocked 2500k will bottleneck anything if that's your concern.
 
Oh I see. I thought for sure it would be bottlenecked by the CPU, especially at that "low" of a res (compared to the tri-monitor fellas here).
 
Playing at 1680x1050 with a 2500K and a GTX 680, I have to get up to ridiculously extreme AA levels (like 32xCSAA + 8xSGSSAA) before seeing less than 60FPS, and I think it's the GTX 680 that bottlenecks first.
 
GTX 680 is overkill for 1080P , Previous Gen cards will do just fine unless you feel the need too crank up useless AA that wont improve your gaming skills because you'll be too busy looking at roofs with straight pretty lines instead of looking at the person you're supposed too killing. Also the premium price on current gen cards is so crazy because you can buy peoples used stuff from last gen for 30-40% of the price of a GTX 680 :) I'm done with being the guy who waste $1000 on GPU setup's when I can buy the last guy who spent that much on his for $300-400 1 year down the road and it runs my games fine at 2560x1600 @ 60+ FPS :) With some good searching you can find Dual 6950's for $350 and you will be plenty happy. You can even purchase 1 of them and most likely be satisfied if your not trying too game at 2560x1600.

Also if you have no concern with DX 11 you can purchase a GTX 295 for $140-150 range and overclock it too 700+ Core and score over 11,000 in 3DMARK Vantage. Incredible performance that will even run 2560x1600 in 95% of games. So too me it just seems a bit out of the realm too spend $1000 and at the end of the day you can still play the games just fine and kill the guy on the GTX 680 who is still getting 50-60 FPS because he cranked up his AA all the way with the extra power.

Taking advise from upgrade junkies who have too have the latest advancement even for 10-15% increases isn't the best idea, some of these people have no limit too what they will pay for small increases and if you are average joe I would not advise doing that.
 
Last edited:
OK that's what I'm talking about. That's a bottleneck to me just as I assumed. I don't care for 32xCSAA etc just for the sake of getting out of a bottleneck. 2xAA, native res, and all high is what's important to me
 
Well my personal suggestion, If you care about DX 11, Get a ATi 6950 and unlock it , If you don't care about DX11 get a GTX 295 (newer model) and overclock it back too GTX 280 speeds and you will get GTX 570 performance for $140-150 in DX 10.
 
thecrafter said:
OK that's what I'm talking about. That's a bottleneck to me just as I assumed. I don't care for 32xCSAA etc just for the sake of getting out of a bottleneck. 2xAA, native res, and all high is what's important to me
Click to expand...

While PsychoAMD may have a point about the upgrade junkies, it's still their business if they want to spend that much or not. Computer gaming, for most is a hobby and most people budget for their hobby. So buy the best card you can afford, especially if you don't upgrade that often.

So maybe you could tell us your budget, then we can help with which card to buy.

Saying all that, there is more to the 680 than raw power, it's really quiet, stays really cool and doesn't need a huge power supply to run. It should keep you gaming for a good few years.

For the record I have an i2500k with a GTX 680 and I game at 1920x1080. If you can afford it I would recommend you get it.
 
The optimal card is what your wallet can afford.

Your CPU and resolution will keep up with whatever you throw at it. BF3 will punish 1 680 without problems @ 1080p, at max settings (ultra, hbao, 4xaa, high post, etc) you will be glad you had it.

If your really asking what is the optimal card for you, then it depends on what you want to get out of it and what you want to spend. Aside from going all out 4 way SLI 680's on an LN2 2700k @ 5.5ghz, most things shy of that are not overkill for 1080p and anyone who says otherwise is happy with lower detail/lower fps or is trying to prove something with their surround/giant monitor and thinks 1080p is nothing.

If you want to run high/ultra with any AA, you want at least a 680 for gaming bliss.
 
Like everyone else said the 680 is not overkill, in fact it runs quite perfectly with my 2500k.
 
I'm running a 1920x1200 display and just picked up a 680..., Mind you it's not going inside the system in my sig. (as that would be a waste) My Z77 board arrives tomorrow and then it's just a matter of waiting on Intel to trade me a 3770k for some of my hard earned $$$ :D

So yeah, go for the 680.
 
I have a 580 and the i5 2500k using 1920x1080 and I am able to max out pretty much anything I throw at it. The 680 would definitely not be a waste of $$. I say go for it.
 
A 680 or 7970 is overkill for 1920x1200, truly. There's just not that many games out right now that would use the extra power. I'd say in this case, a better path would be to get a midrange card (7850/7870 or wait for the nVidia 670 or 660s to come out), and in the future if a game comes out that needs more power, you could probably add a second for SLI/Crossfire for probably less, because by that point there's probably going to be a new generation of cards out.

Computer parts like video cards and CPUs are never investments. A good power supply, case, monitor...those are the parts that will live on in future builds IMO.
 
Daggah said:
A 680 or 7970 is overkill for 1920x1200, truly. There's just not that many games out right now that would use the extra power. I'd say in this case, a better path would be to get a midrange card (7850/7870 or wait for the nVidia 670 or 660s to come out).
Click to expand...

You clearly dont play BF3 or enjoy jagged edges everywhere.
 
crawlgsx said:
You clearly dont play BF3 or enjoy jagged edges everywhere.
Click to expand...

What he said. BF3 does a great job of stressing cards in 64 multiplayer maps.
What card you need all depends on what games you play.

I came from ATI 2x5850's and I couldn't be happier with my 680. It's not cheap, but it performs. The 680 will be top notch for a while, and adding another 680 in a few years will keep you up with the times.
 
I have 2 560 2gb cards and bf3 pushes them hard at 1280x1024 much less 1920x1080. So yeah, go with the fastest and please get one with 2gb or more.
 
If you don't play BF3, then just go with a mid range card. Simply because 95+% of games out now run perfect when a modern AMD/Intel Quad Core 3.5GHz or better when paired along with a PCI 2.0 capable mobo + midrange 1GB Vram DX11 GPU.

Plus you can now take that additional 250.00+ dollars of savings (over a super duper high end 500+card), and drop in a 240GB SSD on sale these days for your game collection. Also if needed (because of cheap/old mobo, buy a better NIC like an Intel for 30.00 for a smoother online gaming experience.


Now if you want to get into the BF3 hype, and have a smooth performance. There are 3 categories IMHO.

BF3 Medium/High Settings and 60fps monitor = 560Ti 2GB, any 570GTX, any 580GTX, 6950/6970, 7870 2GB.

BF3 High/Ultra Settings and 120fps monitor = 680GTX 2GB or 7970 3GB.

BF3 multiple monitors or a larger than 1080p resolution = 680 GTX in SLI or 7970 in CFX.

PC Gaming performance Nirvana achieved!! ;) Gratz!
 
There are a heck of a lot more games than BF3 that can make use of a 680
 
crawlgsx said:
You clearly dont play BF3 or enjoy jagged edges everywhere.
Click to expand...

AMD 6950s and nVidia 560/570s handle BF3 just fine, and yes, I used to play BF3. Only reason I don't right now is that there's not a lot of servers over here in the Pacific region of the world that I can play on. :rolleyes:
 
teletran8 said:
If you don't play BF3, then just go with a mid range card. Simply because 95+% of games out now run perfect when a modern AMD/Intel Quad Core 3.5GHz or better when paired along with a PCI 2.0 capable mobo + midrange 1GB Vram DX11 GPU.

Plus you can now take that additional 250.00+ dollars of savings (over a super duper high end 500+card), and drop in a 240GB SSD on sale these days for your game collection. Also if needed (because of cheap/old mobo, buy a better NIC like an Intel for 30.00 for a smoother online gaming experience.


Now if you want to get into the BF3 hype, and have a smooth performance. There are 3 categories IMHO.

BF3 Medium/High Settings and 60fps monitor = 560Ti 2GB, any 570GTX, any 580GTX, 6950/6970, 7870 2GB.

BF3 High/Ultra Settings and 120fps monitor = 680GTX 2GB or 7970 3GB.

BF3 multiple monitors or a larger than 1080p resolution = 680 GTX in SLI or 7970 in CFX.

PC Gaming performance Nirvana achieved!! ;) Gratz!
Click to expand...

Good write-up, except that "larger than 1080p resolution" (1920x1200, 2560x1440, and 2560x1600) doesn't really need SLI or crossfire IMO.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review/5

Yes, I realize that multiplayer BF3 is harder on a video card than single player. But I think people are being a little unrealistic about just how high they need to jack up their settings. :rolleyes:
 
Daggah said:
"Can make use of" != "really need"
Click to expand...

Your post would be useful if "really need" was a quantifiable term. I can name several games that have GPU requirements as demanding or more so than BF3.
 
Upcoming games like Crysis 3, GTA V, next gen unreal engine, etc. should benefit from the 680.
 
I have to turn some of the settings down in BF3 on 64 player maps with a 680 or else my FPS drop into the high 40's....

High 40's doesnt sound bad considering it's as low as it goes on ultra, but from 110fps or so down to 40 isn't buttery smooth....
 
BF3 and 680 SLI works perfect 1080p ultra 4xmsaa. Some maps get 70+ fps, some 130+
 
I run BF3 with all settings maxed (or Ultra I guess it's called) except FSAA which, IIRC, is set for FXAA, with the setup in my signature. I have no issues with performance at all @ 2560x1600. I don't know what the frame-rates are but it seems smooth to me (i guess there is some room for improvement though, obvioulsy). :/ I can't imagine a GTX 680 at 1920x1080 though. At that resolution, my GTX 480 blows through BF3. lol

If I end up with a GTX 680 2Gb or GTX 680 4GB...I plan to use it for XPX and Train Simulator 2012. Both of which seriously need more power than what my GTX 480 SSC seems to have at this resolution with good levels of FSAA (well, good to me. lol).
 
I have a 2500k running at 4.5Ghz with a GTX580. BF3 runs great on Ultra at 1920x1200. I also play WoW and SWTOR which barely tax the GPU at 50%. I also plan on playing Diablo III which so far going by the beta, it is not GPU intensive at all.

Get the most you can afford as far as video cards go. Do you NEED a 680? or can you get by with a 580 which can be had for about $300 these days.
 
It's actually a pretty good bang for the buck card if you analyze it. Buy it if $500 doesnt bother you. My cap on video cards is $300 so I'd get a 7850 and clock it to 7950/GTX580 lvls and have a nice day.
 
I got a GTX 680 because the main thing I care about is 4x MSAA in BF3 with it all maxed (1920x1200) on 60fps, and the 680 can barely pull that off.
If I waited and got a GTX 670, it would dip down too often into the 50s and below, and would irritate me as that complicates things with regards to keeping a tear-free picture.

Get what you can afford, and what you need to play what you want, how you want.
 
If you are a person that will hold on to their hardware for a few years, I'd say get the 680 anyways. This would give you some headroom for your hardware to grow into.

Now, if you think you will probably only keep it a year, a HD6950 or 560 Ti 448 are good options. I'd make sure they both have 2GB frame buffers though


Aside from that, I'm actually running the setup you describe. i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz with a GTX 680 @ 1080p.
 
Well after some research I think I settled on a GTX 570. If bought used it's a whole $300 cheaper than a GTX 680 (and laughably funny is that 680 used is currently more expensive than brand new due to stock) which I still believe is overkill (and I don't care about more than 2x AA).

It looks like by far the best value of any card out there. Now to decide if I want to go with a 1920x1080 monitor or 1680x1050 hmmm. Might have to go 1050, higher frame rates and cheaper all around. I'm so glad I don't like larger screens and would never even want to get 3x monitors. The cost would be so freaking high!

But I will wait until 670 GTX comes out and see how it stacks up as well as what it's priced at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top