Geforce GTX 670 for 2560 x 1440 gaming

[sanzen07]

Will a Geforce GTX 670 be powerful enough for modern games at 2560x1440 resolution? I have no interest in SLI and the Geforce GTX 680 is a bit out of range for me. I'm currently running an i7 3770k, 16GB Corsair Vengeance and a GTX 460 768MB.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I would say yes.

Plenty of 2560*1600 tested in the reviews.

 

[JAG87]

Absolutely.

But you can't be too demanding with AA settings with the newest games.

With old games, you can go nuts with AA.

 

[tviceman]

Yeah it runs great. Overclock it for better than 680 performance, and you will be solid.

 

[RussianSensation]

I would say yes.

Plenty of 2560*1600 tested in the reviews.

What's the point of linking 1 game from an old review with outdated drivers?

How about using Catalyst 12.7 Beta with AA:

GTX670 is a good card, but in this case HD7970 series is superior to GTX670 at 2560x1440/1600. It has been shown in pretty much every review online:

GTX670 can't even beat a stock 7970 at higher resolutions*

*Once you overclock the 7970, it'll open up a 20%+ lead at 2560x1440 against an overclocked 670 since 7970 has higher overclocking headroom from 925mhz. Not even an overclocked GTX680 can beat an overclocked 7970 at 2560x1440/1600, nevermind a GTX670.

Gigabyte HD7970 OC Windforce 3x for $440 with 1000mhz
PowerColor Vortex II 7970 1100mhz for $440 <This card would beat any GTX670 on the market at 2560x1440 by at least 20% out of the box>

GTX670 is great at 1080P/1200P, but it is not the best option for higher resolutions.

 

[thilanliyan]

What's the point of linking 1 game from an old review with outdated drivers?

How else are we going to get those epic back and forth threads if people DON'T do that??

I was also wondering why ONLY BF3 was linked...so I looked in the OP to see if he/she mentioned that they were looking to play BF3...but I don't see it mentioned...so I'm not sure why only a BF3 graph was shown...WELL, I can maybe take a guess why

 

[RussianSensation]

How else are we going to get those epic back and forth threads if people DON'T do that??

I was also wondering why ONLY BF3 was linked...so I looked in the OP to see if he/she mentioned that they were looking to play BF3...but I don't see it mentioned...so I'm not sure why only a BF3 graph was shown...WELL, I can maybe take a guess why

We have a case where HD7970 is hands down superior (OP doesn't want to SLI and plays at high resolutions) and it's still not being recommended. NV marketing machine FTW! I guess....

 

[JAG87]

We have a case where HD7970 is hands down superior (OP doesn't want to SLI and plays at high resolutions) and it's still not being recommended. NV marketing machine FTW! I guess....

OP didn't even mention AMD. Maybe he doesn't want to deal with shitty AMD drivers?

He asked if a GTX 670 was enougb for 1440p. Answer is yes. Why start the fire?

 

[RussianSensation]

Maybe he doesn't want to deal with shitty AMD drivers? He asked if a GTX 670 was enougb for 1440p. Answer is yes. Why start the fire?

:hmm: That's a good one. I started the fire by recommending the superior product for OP's intended resolution? Is that why 40% of desktop GPU and ~ 60% of mobile GPU users keep buying AMD cards if their drivers are "unworkable".

How about an honest review by one of our forum members?

You can go ahead and recommend that the OP get a 20% slower videocard and save $40 in the process. I think there is a better alternative which is why I mentioned it. Should I even mention that HD7900 can bitcoin mine and pay for itself? Not only will it be faster, but much cheaper to own in the process.

 

[ShintaiDK]

What's the point of linking 1 game from an old review with outdated drivers?

Did you feel hit or something? Read what the OP asks about instead of derailing.

 

[slayernine]

Will a Geforce GTX 670 be powerful enough for modern games at 2560x1440 resolution? I have no interest in SLI and the Geforce GTX 680 is a bit out of range for me. I'm currently running an i7 3770k, 16GB Corsair Vengeance and a GTX 460 768MB.

I just bought one for that exact purpose and after playing Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Civilization V G's&K's I must say that I am very happy with the performance. Frame rates are very smooth

edit: The card I bought was an OC version. The Asus Direct CU II TOP GTX 670 to be exact.

 

[KompuKare]

OP didn't even mention AMD. Maybe he doesn't want to deal with shitty AMD drivers?

He asked if a GTX 670 was enougb for 1440p. Answer is yes. Why start the fire?

See, that red herring again. Thing is I've never had an issue with either NV or AMD drivers but I and several million other people did have an issue with shitty Nvidia hardware. Nvidia's infamous bump choices showed quite clearly that Nvidia truly considers itself software company so much so that they weren't even able to get the most basic electrical engineering right: heat, underfill and solder choices are the very basis of competent chip engineering.

And for some reason Nvidia managed to get away almost scot-free ($250 million didn't even cover the half of it) with very little bad PR.

 

[jacktesterson]

7970 is a better option, but either will be fine.


OP never asked about a 7970 though, so the debate on Green vs Red is pointless yet again


The 670 will be great

 

[RussianSensation]

Did you feel hit or something? Read what the OP asks about instead of derailing.

I did read his entire post and there was no mention of BF3 once. Not only that but latest drivers put HD7970 series ahead of 670 with BF3 with MSAA at 2560x1440/1600. So your post included outdated information either way. Derailing a thread? So now recommending a better product is = derailing the thread on hardware forums? I don't see how providing information to the OP will hurt his decision. If he only wants NV, he'll buy the 670. If he only heard NV marketing about how GTX670/680 are the greatest GPUs since sliced bread, he'll be able to see that maybe GTX670 is not the best option for his use and his $ could be better spent on a competing product in this case. I guess next time someone mentions a slower AMD card, we shouldn't mention to that poster than NV makes a better product in fear of "derailing a thread"?

 

[JAG87]

:hmm: That's a good one. I started the fire by recommending the superior product for OP's intended resolution? Is that why 40% of desktop GPU and ~ 60% of mobile GPU users keep buying AMD cards if their drivers are "unworkable".

How about an honest review by one of our forum members?

You can go ahead and recommend that the OP get a 20% slower videocard and save $40 in the process. I think there is a better alternative which is why I mentioned it. Should I even mention that HD7900 can bitcoin mine and pay for itself? Not only will it be faster, but much cheaper to own in the process.

I'm not recommending anything, you are. I'm just answering the OP.

I also don't care about AMD's market share.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I did read his entire post and there was no mention of BF3 once.

Is BF3 considered a modern game, Yes/No?

 

[RussianSensation]

Is BF3 considered a modern game, Yes/No?

Yes, but so are Batman AC, Crysis 2, Dirt Showdown, Shogun 2, Alan Wake, Civ5, Hard Resest and you didn't link those. So if you are going to provide a link to modern games, either do an average for a review or ask the OP what games he intends to play. How else do you think your post comes off as? Linking old benchmarks of 1 game not mentioned in the OP with older drivers is downright misleading.

How about this review with 15 games?

2560x1440 4AA
GTX670 = 48.1 fps
GTX680 = 53.7 fps
GTX670 AMP! = 55.5 fps
HD7970 GE = 59.4 fps

 

[JAG87]

See, that red herring again. Thing is I've never had an issue with either NV or AMD drivers but I and several million other people did have an issue with shitty Nvidia hardware. Nvidia's infamous bump choices showed quite clearly that Nvidia truly considers itself software company so much so that they weren't even able to get the most basic electrical engineering right: heat, underfill and solder choices are the very basis of competent chip engineering.

And for some reason Nvidia managed to get away almost scot-free ($250 million didn't even cover the half of it) with very little bad PR.

Nvidia doesn't build notebooks, just like AMD doesn't build Xbox 360s.

Should we hold AMD accountable for all the RRODs caused by overheating GPUs?

 

[KompuKare]

Nvidia doesn't build notebooks, just like AMD doesn't build Xbox 360s.

Should we hold AMD accountable for all the RRODs caused by overheating GPUs?

Predictable answer. The Xbox chips were only designed by AMD though. MS had to get them fabbed themselves. And my personal Nvidia defects were 8800GT's not laptops although I've seen plenty of those too (plus some nForce just for good measures). Incidentally, all of those part revision numbers were in line with Charlies 'rants'...

But yes, HP DV series laptops are truly awful too but they were far from the only OEM affected.

 

[RussianSensation]

I also don't care about AMD's market share.

You mentioned AMD's ***** drivers without evidence. If their drivers are that bad, why would AMD still have 40% desktop / 60% market share? Your hypothesis that they have poor drivers in general doesn't align with market share. If the product was in "non-workable" state, it wouldn't even sell. I have owned plenty of AMD and NV cards. What specific issues did you experience with AMD drivers personally?

 

[thilanliyan]

Is BF3 considered a modern game, Yes/No?

Is BF3 the ONLY modern game, Yes/No?

Nvidia doesn't build notebooks, just like AMD doesn't build Xbox 360s.

Should we hold AMD accountable for all the RRODs caused by overheating GPUs?

Microsoft was responsible for the fabbing and cooling solution on the XBox 360, which was inadequate.

nVidia were responsible for the solder recommendation AFAIK as it is part of the GPU package?

EDIT: Just reiterating what KompuKare and RussianSensation are saying since I was beaten to the punch.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Um...wow...

670 is fine really. However, you don't need 8x aa at 2560x1440. I've tried 2560x1600 and it's very similar pixels so I can use that as a basis. You might feel like 1080p needs AA to remove jagged edges and sharpen up the picture. With 1440p you might feel it doesn't necessarily need tons of AA and can do well with 2x or even 0x sometimes. Maybe use FXAA instead and get almost no performance loss. Yes a 7970 or overclocked 7950 might be faster but remove AA and it's really not a big difference in playability. So I feel the links to charts showing 8x aa at a resolution like 2560x1600 are misleading since you can turn AA levels down and shrink any performance gap and reduce memory usage while still retaining a good IQ level.

Traditionally from my experience Nvidia updates drivers for new release games more rapidly than AMD. That's my biggest gripe with AMD sometimes.

As for why battlefield 3 was linked, it's a popular and demanding title that holds sway in a lot of people's minds in terms of what upgrades to look at. I posted something in another thread that is relevant here. Russian said "why link to old review using outdated drivers". I said in the other thread that it's what people have to go by. No review site makes new graphs every time a new driver is released. What we have to go by is the results from their review which might be a couple months old.

So the answer is yes a 670 would be ok. You can overclock it and get GTX 680+ performance if you wish.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

At 1440p 7970 oc is about 20-30% faster on average than 670 oc. There will be games like Alan wake which will run at 1440p on the former but not with the latter. And this number will only increase with time due to 20% performance gap and additional VRAM which will come in handy at 1440p.

Most taxing games won't run any or at most 2x msaa with 7970 oc while more often than not worse with 670.

 

[RussianSensation]

Russian said "why link to old review using outdated drivers". I said in the other thread that it's what people have to go by. No review site makes new graphs every time a new driver is released. What we have to go by is the results from their review which might be a couple months old.

It is true in many cases, but not this time. AnandTech already re-tested BF3 with more recent drivers in their HD7970 GE review. So instead of linking a June 22, 2012 review, why are the graphs from some March 2012 review being linked? Here is the performance using more recent drivers.

Also, it's not like other websites haven't tested BF3 with more recent drivers from both NV and AMD. Here is another June 22nd review from Computerbase:

We all know that Kepler cards had a huge performance lead in BF3, but today, it's just not there anymore.

The performance lead in SKYRIM and Dirt 3 has now also been shifted to AMD, while NV had the lead in those games during their launch drivers.

Using June 2012 drivers:

People really should update their information because with more recent drivers the HD7970 GE is faster card than the GTX680, which means by definition a 1000mhz HD7970 would beat GTX670.

Is BF3 considered a modern game, Yes/No?

What about Arma II w/Day Z mod? That's a very popular "modern" game right now and HD7970 crushes 670 in it.....but it wasn't mentioned.

 

[cmdrdredd]

1) no mention of overclocking
2) don't assume every single card overclocks the same
3) the question wasn't "what card do I buy" it was "is a 670 good enough for that resolution. The answer is yes. Future cannot be predicted.


Russian: refer to #3 above lol. I think it was linked because it showed playable fps. Not to compare to a card the OP didn't ask about *shrug*

Also, to me...40fps is unplayable in BF3 because the "meat" of the game is online and online will tank if you're getting 40fps in single player. So turn AA off and you'll be fine