Can new GPU's easily handle 2560x1440 with everything on?

[chimaxi83]

As of now a single $500 gpu can max out 99.9% games, sometimes without AA. However when next gen consoles release in 2014 you may need 2 $500+ gpus of the future to max out games released in the future the answer isn't sometimes, the answer is always yes with very rare exceptions. So in short the answer is yes, not sometimes.

Uhh... a game is not maxed without AA dude. lol. why would I want to max everything else just to have a pretty, yet jaggy filled mess? Yes, most games can be maxed out (with AA, obviously) and be fine, but that is definitely not 100%.

It is game dependent and the answer is not yes.

 

[Gigglin]

Uhh... a game is not maxed without AA dude. lol. why would I want to max everything else just to have a pretty, yet jaggy filled mess? Yes, most games can be maxed out (with AA, obviously) and be fine, but that is definitely not 100%.

It is game dependent and the answer is not yes.

You both have a point. But also consider the fact that at 1440p resolution the pixels are so small that turning on more than 4xAA shows no noticeable difference in IQ. Yes, the slider goes beyond 4XAA, but there are not really any jaggies at this native resolution that I can notice, IMHO.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

1440p without aa has less Jaggies than 1080p with 4x msaa or even more aa. Besides, there are games which don't run maxed out with aa leave alone 8x aa even at 1080p. By that logic we should stick to 720p. Some games don't run with 1080p 8x aa or even 4x aa with min 60 fps including crisis crisis 2 metro. Go buy a 720p in that case. Other than these 3 games everything is fine at 1440p mostly with some aa but occasionally without aa.

To run crisis 1 1080p Max 8x aa with minimum 60 fps you need 7970 cf

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Uhh... a game is not maxed without AA dude. lol. why would I want to max everything else just to have a pretty, yet jaggy filled mess? Yes, most games can be maxed out (with AA, obviously) and be fine, but that is definitely not 100%.

It is game dependent and the answer is not yes.

You probably don't have a 1440p monitor, else you wouldn't have a problem with Jaggies even without aa. That is what is wonderful about 1440p. Even with 2xx aa it is better than 1920x1080 with 8x aa

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

If you go with a 7850 and overclock it 30-40% then that compares with a 580 OC which is like 80-85% of a stock 680 for half the price

checking out that 7850 right now. Neweggs got one for 240 that comes with a dirt 3 coupon http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161406

how is HIS? and is it worth paying 20 more for the Asus or gigabyte for overclocking? I was almost going to buy another 560ti but the one with more cores, and then move this 560ti to my second pc, and get rid of my 8800gt. Would this be a better option?

 

[Face2Face]

checking out that 7850 right now. Neweggs got one for 240 that comes with a dirt 3 coupon http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161406

how is HIS? and is it worth paying 20 more for the Asus or gigabyte for overclocking? I was almost going to buy another 560ti but the one with more cores, and then move this 560ti to my second pc, and get rid of my 8800gt. Would this be a better option?

For the love of God do not buy that HIS. I have the 6870 with the same cooler and it sucks, really sucks (Temps into the 90's). My 6870 is out for RMA now and it will take 2-4 weeks to get another. Spend the little extra for a better cooler.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

For the love of God do not buy that HIS. I have the 6870 with the same cooler and it sucks, really sucks (Temps into the 90's). My 6870 is out for RMA now and it will take 2-4 weeks to get another. Spend the little extra for a better cooler.

thanks for the tip. Might wait until someone has a deal on the Asus or gigabyte.

Just a thought - if i decided to watercool, would it matter at all, since i would be replacing the stock cooler anyway? (ram heatsinks suck too?)

 

[Face2Face]

thanks for the tip. Might wait until someone has a deal on the Asus or gigabyte.

Just a thought - if i decided to watercool, would it matter at all, since i would be replacing the stock cooler anyway? (ram heatsinks suck too?)

I can tell you my HIS 6870 has a really thin PCB. It's kinda like holding two sheets of paper. Garbage PCB and a horrible RMA service - I would still look at another brand. I am done with HIS.

Edit - Not sure if there is even any heatsinks on the ram

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Get msi twin frozr. But a 7850 oc can't play each game at 1440p

 

[Gloomy]

Uhh... a game is not maxed without AA dude. lol. why would I want to max everything else just to have a pretty, yet jaggy filled mess?

Jaggies are much less of a problem when your resolution is really high. I wouldn't say it's as extreme as 8x when going from 1080 to 1440, it's more like 4x. Hardly a "jaggy mess"...

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Jaggies are much less of a problem when your resolution is really high. I wouldn't say it's as extreme as 8x when going from 1080 to 1440, it's more like 4x. Hardly a "jaggy mess"...

1440p 0x aa is better or comparable than or to 1080p 8x aa assuming both are 27". I have owned all this stuff and tried everything, so I know,

 

[boxleitnerb]

Building a new system soon, and for 1080p performance, i can turn just about everything up with my current GPU (560ti). I really wasnt considering upgrading the GPU, but one of the tech podcasts i was listening to mentioned that GPU's are now god enough to comfortably run at 1440p with no problems.

Im guessing the new 680's will be able to, but how comfortably can they handle that res? I would almost consider getting one, but my worry is that they can barely handle todays games at that res, then im screwed in a year or two, and will be forced to go back down to 1080p (presumably playing at a non-native res if i upgrade to a 1440p monitor.

I also have gotten used to 120hz with my current monitor, so not sure if id be able to give that up, but hopefully with apple pushing new high res monitors, they will release a 1440p or 2560x1600 120hz gaming monitor (dont really care about 3d).

In newer demanding games? No. In many titles you will be in the 20s or 30s avg which is not enough for a really smooth gameplay.

And regarding AA:
As long as the pixel density is similar, the larger resolution does squat in terms of AA. 1440p with 2xAA will exhibit more aliasing than 1080p with 8xAA.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

In newer demanding games? No. In many titles you will be in the 20s or 30s avg which is not enough for a really smooth gameplay.

And regarding AA:
As long as the pixel density is similar, the larger resolution does squat in terms of AA. 1440p with 2xAA will exhibit more aliasing than 1080p with 8xAA.

Wrong. Please name the game, dont talk in the air please.

Both points wrong. You don't have a 1440p monitor.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Wrong. Please name the game, dont talk in the air please.

Both points wrong. You don't have a 1440p monitor.

From the AT review (680 and 7970 respectively at 1600p):
Crysis Warhead: 31, 36
Shogun 2: 33, 28

Computerbase.de from here on
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...a-geforce-gtx-680/35/#abschnitt_serious_sam_3

Serious Sam 3: 30, 34
The Witcher 2: 35, 33
Anno 2070: 27, 35
Batman AC: 36, 30
BF3 (4xAA, not FXAA): 40, 36
Crysis 2: 30, 27
Dragon Age 2: 23, 21
Metro 2033 (4xAA, not AAA): 18, 20

Or look here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-22.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-23.html

So I'm right. For this resolution and the more demanding games you would need about twice the power if you don't want to make compromises like turning on crap like FXAA or MLAA or leaving AA off altogether.

And regarding AA you are wrong as well. At todays pixel densities, a higher resolution does nothing in terms of antialiasing compared to a smaller screen but with the same pixel density. You have more pixels, but the size of the monitor is also increased, thus jaggies are larger. Also, our eye tends to highlight light/dark contrasts. As long as we have discrete rectangular pixels and no averaging (like AA), aliasing will always be a problem.

Now if you scale a high res like 2160p down to 1080p on an 1080p display (24" roughly) you get less aliasing. But this is due to the averaging filter (Lanczos for example) that you can do because you have more pixels, thus more information. However, on a larger screen with more pixels, all those (equally larger) pixels are displayed as they are, no averaging takes place.

An example here.
1080p, a section of the displayed image:


2160p@1080p, same section (the size doesn't change! downscaled with Lanczos ):



I don't need to own such a monitor to understand the basics.

Even with insanely high resolution you cannot defeat certain kind of artifacts like Moire-effects.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

1. I am talking of 1440p

2. I am talking without aa for intensive games like bf3, I have the system and it never drops below 60 fps. You are talking theory which isn't always right. You are still a noob here.

3. Crysis crysis 2 metro witches with uber and 1-2 more games won't avg 60 fps at 1440p ESP with aa. But they are not the majority of the games. The majority of the games run fine without aa and most even with aa

4. You have no idea about aa, as somebody else will soon point out.

Skyrim runs max 1440p 4x msaa
Alan wake max 1440p 2x aa
Bf3 max 1440p no aa no msaa

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I already stated assuming you play on a 27" then 1440p no aa is better than 1080p 8x aa. We are not talking of different monitor sizes

 

[aaksheytalwar]

And I assume you will oc a 7970, because that means 20%+ higher fps compared to what reviews say about stock performance. So if a review gives you 35 fps with aa that is actually 50+- without aa and 60ish once overclocked and without aa

 

[chimaxi83]

1. I am talking of 1440p

2. I am talking without aa for intensive games like bf3, I have the system and it never drops below 60 fps. You are talking theory which isn't always right. You are still a noob here.

3. Crysis crysis 2 metro witches with uber and 1-2 more games won't avg 60 fps at 1440p ESP with aa. But they are not the majority of the games. The majority of the games run fine without aa and most even with aa

4. You have no idea about aa, as somebody else will soon point out.

Skyrim runs max 1440p 4x msaa
Alan wake max 1440p 2x aa
Bf3 max 1440p no aa no msaa

I already stated assuming you play on a 27" then 1440p no aa is better than 1080p 8x aa. We are not talking of different monitor sizes

And I assume you will oc a 7970, because that means 20%+ higher fps compared to what reviews say about stock performance. So if a review gives you 35 fps with aa that is actually 50+- without aa and 60ish once overclocked and without aa

3 posts in a row? I do believe there is a button called "Edit".

 

[boxleitnerb]

1. I am talking of 1440p

1600p is not that different. You will not notice 10% better or worse fps.

2. I am talking without aa for intensive games like bf3, I have the system and it never drops below 60 fps. You are talking theory which isn't always right. You are still a noob here.

And you are rude. What theory? If one is conscious about quality, one always needs AA. The OP said "easily with everything on". That includes AA.

3. Crysis crysis 2 metro witches with uber and 1-2 more games won't avg 60 fps at 1440p ESP with aa. But they are not the majority of the games. The majority of the games run fine without aa and most even with aa

The OP didn't specify which games he wants to play. He was asking a general question and the answer to that question is "no".

4. You have no idea about aa, as somebody else will soon point out.

Skyrim runs max 1440p 4x msaa
Alan wake max 1440p 2x aa
Bf3 max 1440p no aa no msaa

Right...no counterargument, just "you have no idea". Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this discussion.

Skyrim is not a demanding game
2xAA is not "everything on"
no AA is not "everything on". MSAA is a subset of "AA"

I already stated assuming you play on a 27" then 1440p no aa is better than 1080p 8x aa. We are not talking of different monitor sizes

Depends, there are pros and cons. You definitely get more aliasing in 1440p with no AA. On the plus side you have no blurring from the scaler and more details. Both settings are not optimal. I would always prefer the resolution where I can turn on (SS)AA.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Just tell me whether you have actually bought all this hardware and tried for yourself? Because instead of looking online, I actually spent a few grands on this stuff and am telling you from personal experience.

If you want 24x AA on then no single GPU can max out every game even at 16x10 leave alone 19x10. So your point is mute.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Just tell me whether you have actually bought all this hardware and tried for yourself? Because instead of looking online, I actually spent a few grands on this stuff and am telling you from personal experience.

If you want 24x AA on then no single GPU can max out every game even at 16x10 leave alone 19x10. So your point is mute.

No, yours is, because you're talking about a different standard than the OP. If you're happy playing without "everything on", good for you. But you are not the OP.

I myself have very high standards regarding AA. Basically, I only play with SSAA because I hate aliasing and shimmering. Anyway, I have made my point, you have made no valid counterarguments, so I think the OPs question is thoroughly answered.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

You can't max out AA even at 1680x1050 with a single 680 for most modern games, for nearly all intensive games actually. Does that mean people buy 680 to play at 1024x768?

@OP, how much AA do you need as a baseline? If you need 4x AA, not every game can be maxed out at 1080p with a single card, eg: Metro, Witcher. In fact you can't max these games even at 1680x1050 with 4x AA no matter if you own a 680 or or 7970 oc.

 

[Jacky60]

The answer is no they can't. The 680/7970 do very well but you need them crossfired to even begin to max out games like Metro 2033 or Arma 2 and even then you'll not consistently get 60fps with all AA options maxed.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

A more simpler and clear statement is, a 7970 OC will give similiar or better performance at 1440p or 1600p as a 6970 stock would give at 1080p.

 

[TidusZ]

The only graphically demanding game I have is BF3 which runs at 60 fps solid @ 2560x1600 everything highest with no AA.