Should I get a GTX 670?

FalseChristian · 01-02-2013, 06:42 PM

I've found that a GTX 670 is about 2x as fast as my GTX 460 1GB. Would my i5 2500K at 4.5GHz be a bottleneck? Do you think that 2x performance is worth it or should I wait for the GTX 770?

The resolution I game at is 1680x1050.

bigystyle84 · 01-02-2013, 06:57 PM

2500k @ 4.5 Can run two in SLI just fine.

7950's are hard to ignore right now in that range.

ElFenix · 01-02-2013, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalseChristian

I've found that a GTX 670 is about 2x as fast as my GTX 460 1GB. Would my i5 2500K at 4.5GHz be a bottleneck? Do you think that 2x performance is worth it or should I wait for the GTX 770?

The resolution I game at is 1680x1050.

Are you having any noticeable slowdown in the games you are playing at 1680x1050?

FalseChristian · 01-02-2013, 07:06 PM

I really like ATI but I'm not sure if my mobo supports Crossfire. If it does and runs Quake HD I might just go for 2 HD 7950s.

FalseChristian · 01-02-2013, 07:09 PM

No but I know that 1GB of vRAM is a limitation even at 1680x1050. It sucks because my 2 GTX 460s are still plenty fast.

VulgarDisplay · 01-02-2013, 07:14 PM

How long are you going to be playing at 1680x1050? A gtx670 is what I would regard as massive overkill at that resolution. Gtx660 or 7870 would offer a pretty substantial performance gain and save you some money if you plan to stay at that resolution for a while.

FalseChristian · 01-02-2013, 08:17 PM

Yes, you are right. I think a coupla GTX 660s in SLI would do me well. I'm quite happy with my 2.5 year old 22" Samsung 2253BW. I paid $259.99 for it. I paid a bit more than a regular 22" because I wanted quality and I have not been disappointed.

VulgarDisplay · 01-02-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalseChristian

Yes, you are right. I think a coupla GTX 660s in SLI would do me well. I'm quite happy with my 2.5 year old 22" Samsung 2253BW. I paid $259.99 for it. I paid a bit more than a regular 22" because I wanted quality and I have not been disappointed.

I was thinking more along the lines of a single gtx660 or single 7870 at that resolution. If you were going to go for SLi 660's I would tell you to just get a gtx670.

Termie · 01-02-2013, 09:03 PM

OP - you haven't really said whether you are experiencing any problems. All you've said is "I know that 1GB of vRAM is a limitation even at 1680x1050." First of all, how do you know that? Second of all, I'm almost positive that's wrong.

Unless you have a strong reason to upgrade, I'd probably hold out for now. You've already waited this long. If anything, I'd look into spending some money on upgrading that monitor first.

Yukmouth · 01-02-2013, 09:19 PM

No, 79xx is faster and sli is pointless on that screen.

psolord · 01-03-2013, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalseChristian

No but I know that 1GB of vRAM is a limitation even at 1680x1050. It sucks because my 2 GTX 460s are still plenty fast.

I am pretty sure your 460s are still plenty fast as well. You only need to make very little sacrifices in order to play all current games. I believe that by keeping MSAA at check your framebuffer will be fine.

I'd wait until the 700 series comes out, to see what's in offer. Game engines will gallop forward when the new consoles come out anyway.

lehtv · 01-03-2013, 05:19 AM

460 is for 1680x1050 what 560/560 Ti is for 1080p... and 560 Ti wasn't fast enough for 1080p, in my case. I would upgrade to 7870 or 660 Ti on that resolution.

Gryz · 01-03-2013, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalseChristian

Would my i5 2500K at 4.5GHz be a bottleneck?

I've seen these questions so often. And I don't understand them.

If a 2500K@4.5GHz is not fast enough for a gtx670, then what are you supposed to buy, if you have a gtx670 ? And in particular, what are people supposed to do, who prefer to not overclock their CPUs ? A 2500K@4.5GHz is faster than a i7-3770K at stock speeds in games. And what if you have a gtx680 ? Or an overclocked 7970 ? Were those GPUs designed while the designers knew that they could not be paired with any CPU efficiently ?

And then there is the issue: when are you bottlenecked ?
Maybe a slower CPU can not reach 100 fps in a particular game. Only 40 fps. But then you can still enable lots of eyecandy on the GPU. And it won't affect the overall framerates. You can enable 8xMSAA, transparency, maybe SSSGAA even. High SSAO, high-res textures, high resolutions, etc. And always stay at that 40 fps. Is that useless ? Not if you value eyecandy more than high framerates. So you will get value out of your new videocard. And if/when you decide to upgrade your CPU later, you'll get the last part of value out of your GPU.

But again, I can't imagine a 2500K would bottleneck any GPU, even at stock speeds.

poohbear · 01-03-2013, 06:01 AM

i'm guessing the OP was trolling or needs his e peni stroked.... how can he start by asking if his 2500k @ 4.5 is fast enough for a vid card??

and if ure really gaming @ 1050 just buy a new monitor, otherwise stick with ur 460 @ that resolution.

lehtv · 01-03-2013, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poohbear

i'm guessing the OP was trolling or needs his e peni stroked.... how can he start by asking if his 2500k @ 4.5 is fast enough for a vid card??

Not everyone knows exact limits for bottlenecks. And I would argue that 2500K @ 4.5 can in fact bottleneck a 670 on 1680x1050. In almost all games it will not bottleneck, but there are exceptions like Planetside 2, some situations in BF3, and possibly others such as the late game in larger scale games of Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander and Civilization V.

Quote:

and if ure really gaming @ 1050 just buy a new monitor, otherwise stick with ur 460 @ that resolution.

460 isn't really enough to maintain 60fps on high settings in all games... it's as valid to upgrade from 460 on that resolution as it is to upgrade from 560 or 560 Ti on 1080p.

Termie · 01-03-2013, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lehtv

...

460 isn't really enough to maintain 60fps on high settings in all games... it's as valid to upgrade from 460 on that resolution as it is to upgrade from 560 or 560 Ti on 1080p.

He has SLI. He should get a new monitor.

Tweak155 · 01-03-2013, 07:17 AM

I game at 2560x1440 on a 560ti 448 with I7 920. No slow downs for my games and it only has 1280mb memory.

lambchops511 · 01-03-2013, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poohbear

i'm guessing the OP was trolling or needs his e peni stroked.... how can he start by asking if his 2500k @ 4.5 is fast enough for a vid card??

and if ure really gaming @ 1050 just buy a new monitor, otherwise stick with ur 460 @ that resolution.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt, I personally don't know either. Thing with clockspeeds as well is that you can't compare Apples-to-Apples from any generation, like a NetBurst 5 GHz is slower than Ivy Bridge 2 GHz (or is it?).

Op:
I would get a GTX 670, I went from a GTX 460 -> GTX 670 and there is a very noticeable difference.

guskline · 01-03-2013, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalseChristian

I've found that a GTX 670 is about 2x as fast as my GTX 460 1GB. Would my i5 2500K at 4.5GHz be a bottleneck? Do you think that 2x performance is worth it or should I wait for the GTX 770?

The resolution I game at is 1680x1050.

FalseChristian: The 2500k definitely will NOT bottleneck a GTX 670. You can see from my sig that I have 3 different rigs running gtx670 and 680. 2 of the rigs have 2500ks at 4.5Ghz (103 x 44) and the third is using an AMD 8350 at 4.6Ghz (21 x 219). So simply put the "upgrade" to a GTX 670 from the 2 GTX460s in SLI will not be a bottleneck.

What Termie suggested is a great recommendation. I would be looking for at least a 24" monitor running native 1920 x 1080. I've run one of my 2500k rigs with 2 GTX460s-768 in SLI on a 24" 1920 x 1080 and it is quite a difference from 1680x1050. Just a thought.

lehtv · 01-03-2013, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Termie

He has SLI. He should get a new monitor.

Oh. Well in that case.

It didn't say it in the OP.

moonbogg · 01-03-2013, 10:24 AM

SLI 460'S is not good for 1080p anymore. Games require up to 1.5gig Vram and beyond in some games at 1080p. I say go for the single 670 and when you have the extra cash, get a 24" monitor and that single 670 will be good to go for 1920x1200 for a good while.
Regarding the 2500K, there is really nothing you can upgrade to right now. If anything, a 2600k would get you an extra 10% in 2 or 3 games.

BrightCandle · 01-03-2013, 10:39 AM

I am in agreement. I was having issues with a 5970 over a year ago and that was due to the low VRAM. I think 2GB is completely fine today but 1GB is a bit low for a lot of games on high settings. On lower settings 1GB is still fine, but if you are considering SLI you are doing so to access higher quality graphics and there VRAM is a big issue now.

Shmee · 01-03-2013, 11:20 AM

what games do you play though? I would say something like a 660ti or 78xx to be a good medium. If you want anything more, I would recommend a monitor upgrade as well.

guskline · 01-03-2013, 02:31 PM

BTW: Just got a Gigabyte 7870 OC video card (used Xmas gift cards). Used it to replace 2 5770s in CF in a rig running an 8150. Very strong video card for a great price.

poohbear · 01-03-2013, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lehtv

Not everyone knows exact limits for bottlenecks. And I would argue that 2500K @ 4.5 can in fact bottleneck a 670 on 1680x1050. In almost all games it will not bottleneck, but there are exceptions like Planetside 2, some situations in BF3, and possibly others such as the late game in larger scale games of Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander and Civilization V.

you would argue that huh? it's because u're totally clueless about cpus and computer hardware and shouldn't be in this thread.

Starcraft2 and BF3 get bottlenecked by a 2500k @ 4.5ghz???

u are completely clueless about computers.

show me ONE benchmark that shows a 2500k @ 4.5ghz bottlenecks starcraft2 or even BF3 (Bf3 is the most GPU dependant game out there!)