Entirely hypothetical PC upgrade question

[sesselpupser]

Hi guys,

So I have a PC. It fits the generic 2011 PC gaming profile of:

2500K at the stock 3.3GHz
Z68-V Pro
2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws
MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC
Corsair AX 850W Pro Gold PSU
And some other bits which aren't pertinent to my question.

I have three Samsung 226BW monitors hooked up to it, the resolution of each is 1680x1050.

My (two part) question is: I'm strongly considering upgrading the monitors to three 23" 1080p Dell Ultrasharps because I have a 24" 1920x1200 Dell for my Mac and it's absolutely stunning. However, some games in Surround at 5040x1050 don't perform all that well, so will the increase to 3x1080p have a significant impact on the performance? If it does impact the performance enough to make the games unplayable, what sort of upgrade should I make? I'm thinking a second 680, but I'm not too convinced about SLI, which would mean upgrading to a 690... But is that madness? Another option may be to sell my 680 to fund a 4GB 680, but from what I've heard the memory bandwidth on the 680 could bottleneck the extra VRAM. Maybe overclocking the CPU would be advisable?

Or maybe I should stop being a graphics whore and get over the fact that I really should just turn settings down...

Do any of yous use three 1080p monitors with a 680? Could you give an example of your frame rates with a particular game with particular settings? I can't remember any frame rates off hand but I'll go check later on and post what sort of performance I'm getting.

Cheers!

 

[bevo]

I didn't look but somewhere I'm sure there's a thread with people posting their results of triple screens running unigine heaven with a 680.

 

[Pako]

I would loosely compare one of my 590's to a 680. With that said, one 590 is not enough for 5760x1080 with settings turned up in my opinion for games like Crysis 2 and BF3.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

You won't see a performance upgrade by increasing the memory; maybe if you are maxing out your 2 GB card you'll see a couple of fps. You need more processing power by the way of additional cards... One card per screen.

While I suggest increasing your vram for triples regardless, your bottleneck here is gpu processing power. You need moar cores lol.

5040x1050 = 5.4+ million pixels
5760x1080 = 6.2+ million pixels

 

[bevo]

I run sli 570s and haven't had any sli issues at all. I wouldn't be afraid of going with 2 680s. I would do that way before I bought a 690. I haven't played anything my 570 s won't run fairly decent with triples yet. Probably Bf3 being the hardest. I run it at medium to high settings and never drop below 40s.
This is at 1080p
The only sli issue I may have but I'm not sure if its an sli problem is Iracing stutters sometimes on a few tracks but I think that's just iracing for me.

 

[sesselpupser]

Interesting info here, thanks guys. Looks like my choices are two 680s or a 690, but after some research it seems the two 680s are the better choice, because:

- The 690's cooling design means one of the CPUs is vented out of the back of the case, the other is vented, er, into the case, thus raising the temperature by about one 680's worth (my 680 has seen up to 65C in the past two weeks and 21C while idling).

- I'd have to sell my 680 for more than what a new one costs for a 690 to be the cheaper option!

- The 690 has to conform to a 300W draw limit and therefore had to be downclocked slightly with lower overclocking ability than a 680, which is why two 680s will outperform a 690 despite the fact that they all use the same GPU and both setups will have 4GB of VRAM.

- I think that might be it, but paying more for more internal case heat and lower performance is madness.

So it looks like if I feel I need to upgrade my graphics hardware (which I pretty much already know I will because I'm like that) then another 680 is the way to go. That's almost £900 for some extra pixels and IPS panels... Sheesh. That's more than some people spend on pretty decent gaming PCs, which is why this is a purely hypothetical question right now. Seeing as how I won't be able to afford the monitors and the other 680 at the same time I'll have plenty of time to think about whether or not it's really necessary! Any problems with temperatures will be dealt with by buying a bigger case (I have a Fractal Design Define R3 midi tower right now which is feeling kind of packed), and the rest... Well, it's all a big trade off anyway, right? I'm sure it can be made to work.


Thanks guys!

 

[David]

Ah, looks like you've already got this sorted out, but as an extra vote of confidence I'd go with adding the second 680 as well. Hope it works out for you.

 

[Pako]

I would say you are on the right track with 680's in SLI. The only reason I see going with a 690 is if you are limited to a single slot, or you are looking to Quad-SLI with 2 690's and only using up 2 slots. The footprint of 1 690 is much smaller than that of a 680. With that being said, my 590's are dogs when it comes to overclocking. It's frustrating I can be running quad sli, full graphics mode and my GPU's will run all day in the 32-36c range. Plenty of headroom to overclock, but with their voltage limitations, overclocking is a bust. The next graphics upgrade I do will definitely be single gpu cards on water. If anything, overclocking should be relative to my cooling solution.

Back to your setup, do you like surround vision? Another upgrade path you might consider is a higher resolution monitor. There are a few 2544x1440 monitors out there. I find that having fewer quality pixels is better for me than having more crappier pixels. I've ran surround in 1920x1080 (x3) for fun but find that my gaming experience is more enjoyable on my single Dell u2711 monitor at 2544x1440 with everything on ultra. On ultra with that resolutions, BF3 averages 120+fps without breaking a sweat. I still have my other monitors hooked up, but I use them for secondary desktop monitors which is nice. It's also nice to have temp gauges, teamspeak, and other misc windows on a secondary monitor while I'm gaming.

Just some food for thought.

 

[sesselpupser]

Back to your setup, do you like surround vision? Another upgrade path you might consider is a higher resolution monitor. There are a few 2544x1440 monitors out there. I find that having fewer quality pixels is better for me than having more crappier pixels. I've ran surround in 1920x1080 (x3) for fun but find that my gaming experience is more enjoyable on my single Dell u2711 monitor at 2544x1440 with everything on ultra. On ultra with that resolutions, BF3 averages 120+fps without breaking a sweat. I still have my other monitors hooked up, but I use them for secondary desktop monitors which is nice. It's also nice to have temp gauges, teamspeak, and other misc windows on a secondary monitor while I'm gaming.

Just some food for thought.

Well, thanks for asking such a tricky question while I'm down with some sort of life-threatening man flu! Let's see if I can work out an answer and keep it coherently worded...

Actually, long, long story short: I can't really justify spending more on a U2713HM than three U2312HMs, when 75% of the gaming I do is racing, flight and combat sims which benefit greatly from having a huge horizontal FOV. Also, upgrading from a four year old 1680x1050 TN panel to a 1920x1080 IPS, even if I only use one for BF3, Borderlands 2 and so on, is still a pretty big jump!

Oh and another thing, I have a U2412M on my desk which I use with my Mac, it's perfectly conceivable that could get upgraded to a U2713HM, my sim rig could then be moved closer to said desk and a DVI, USB and TOSLINK cable could then be run to that monitor so I could have the choice of 3xU2312HMs or a U2713HM... That's some time away, though.

And I know my girlfriend won't mind because she gets to call dibs on all my old gear!

 

[Pako]

👍 I can see where flight and racing sims would greatly benefit from a 180 degree FOV. Looks like you got it pretty much figured out there!

My wife gets all my "old" gear to. The kids get all of her "old" gear. All in all it's a win win for the whole household!

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Remember when you sli/crossfire you don't have the sum of VRAM of both cards; textures, etc. are identically loaded into both cards.

2x 2GB 680'S = 2 GB of VRAM; not 4. If you want your set up to last two years or so I would upgrade.

 

[sesselpupser]

Remember when you sli/crossfire you don't have the sum of VRAM of both cards; textures, etc. are identically loaded into both cards.

2x 2GB 680'S = 2 GB of VRAM; not 4. If you want your set up to last two years or so I would upgrade.

Oh of course, yeah, I forgot. Do you know if the 690 works the same way? Just out of curiosity of course as I'm not going down that route.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

It's the same.

"Each graphics processor has its own aggregate 256-bit memory bus, on which Nvidia drops 2 GB of GDDR5 memory."

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193.html

Read this about memory:

"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."

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review,26.html

Could you get away with 2 GB... that is entirely up to you. What games do you play and on what settings, and how long until your next upgrade... BF3 maxes on triples at around 1.9 GB (possibly even more on armored kill) ... You're almost out....

www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/22/amd_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/9

My personal opinion is 2 GB is not enough for triples on high settings; especially if you're remotely trying to future proof yourself.

Just throwing it out there... but AMD is cheaper, has 3 GB standard on 79xx, scales better, wider bus, and is faster than Nvidia.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318687/anand-tpu-hexu-lg-catalyst-12-11-benchmarks/0_20

... Sorry I edit a lot.

 

[sesselpupser]

Hmm, I think it's kinder to my wallet if I just stop being such a massive graphics whore! I think I'll just turn stuff down rather than upgrade to 3 or 4GB. I'm afraid AMD isn't something I'd consider, thanks for the suggestion but after the whole thing with Rage (and one or two games after which I can't recall the names of right now) and seeing the trouble a few friends have had with CCC I'm very sceptical of AMD, not to mention the fact that they're not doing too well financially so who knows if driver updates will be forthcoming should the worst happen. I don't really mind if I have to turn down the graphics in the sims I play if it'll save me the time and money involved in selling my 680 to get a 4GB version and then another one to go with it, that's just being greedy!

 

[Pako]

Hmm, I think it's kinder to my wallet if I just stop being such a massive graphics whore! I think I'll just turn stuff down rather than upgrade to 3 or 4GB. I'm afraid AMD isn't something I'd consider, thanks for the suggestion but after the whole thing with Rage (and one or two games after which I can't recall the names of right now) and seeing the trouble a few friends have had with CCC I'm very sceptical of AMD, not to mention the fact that they're not doing too well financially so who knows if driver updates will be forthcoming should the worst happen. I don't really mind if I have to turn down the graphics in the sims I play if it'll save me the time and money involved in selling my 680 to get a 4GB version and then another one to go with it, that's just being greedy!

What is this reasoning that you are speaking of? Be a graphics whore because you can. Anything less is just complicated console gaming.

 

[Casio]

Oh of course, yeah, I forgot. Do you know if the 690 works the same way? Just out of curiosity of course as I'm not going down that route.

The 690 IS 2x680 GPUs in SLI mode. Only difference is that it's on one PCB.

 

[Conza]

My (two part) question is: I'm strongly considering upgrading the monitors to three 23" 1080p Dell Ultrasharps because I have a 24" 1920x1200 Dell for my Mac and it's absolutely stunning. However, some games in Surround at 5040x1050 don't perform all that well, so will the increase to 3x1080p have a significant impact on the performance? If it does impact the performance enough to make the games unplayable, what sort of upgrade should I make? I'm thinking a second 680, but I'm not too convinced about SLI, which would mean upgrading to a 690... But is that madness? Another option may be to sell my 680 to fund a 4GB 680,

Do this. My friend bought a 680 the other day for *converts from AUD to GBP* 425 pounds

Seriously doubt you'd get memory bandwith issues with a single more powerful card, as I'm sure you're aware, double cards does not equal double performance, and triple cards, well we're talking 15-25% increase, getting really studpid.

You have already bought 3 monitors, and you knew doing that would mean constantly upgrading graphics, bite the bullet and upgrade the card, then get the monitors to match. Honestly, a nice round number 2x3GB 7970s, which have faster shader clocks, will be giving you 2GBs per monitor at *converts again* 630 pounds will last much longer, and require less mucking around.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

3 GB VRAM not 6.

 

[Pako]

The 690 IS 2x680 GPUs in SLI mode. Only difference is that it's on one PCB.

As far as how the computer sees the GPU's, that is correct. Make no mistake, however. A 690 will not have the same performance as x2 680's.

 

[Conza]

3 GB VRAM not 6.

Could you go further with that? When it was one monitor and two cards, we saw that each card did half the work, even though this didn't quite double the performance.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Could you go further with that? When it was one monitor and two cards, we saw that each card did half the work, even though this didn't quite double the performance.

Remember when you sli/crossfire you don't have the sum of VRAM of both cards; textures, etc. are identically loaded into both cards.

2x 2GB 680'S = 2 GB of VRAM; not 4. If you want your set up to last two years or so I would upgrade.

If you want further detail then Google it.

 

[Gdog96]

If it was up to me I would buy a 2560x1600 single monitor and have a great image. Just a thought.

 

[Pako]

If it was up to me I would buy a 2560x1600 single monitor and have a great image. Just a thought.

That is the route I went, running a single monitor at 2560x1440. 1920x1080 looks fuzzy to me now. In any case, I do understand wanting surround vision on three monitors for sims, racing and flight alike. You could always get one of these and call it a day.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

^ That is my next route as well; triples are great but there just isn't enough support, tired of stretched images (would highly prefer three independent renders), and bezels are just... distracting.