• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Geforce GTX 670 for 2560 x 1440 gaming

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
746
126
Some games will be totally unplayable at 2560x1440 with AA on if played on a single GPU card no matter what card it is.
Ya, I get that. But the argument of turning down settings is almost a circular reference. Why not get an HD7870 for $250 and turn down settings and save $120-150 over the 670? It goes both ways. A faster card is a faster card and when we are talking about 20% performance edge for $20-40 extra, I think it's material.
 

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
0
0
Yup. As you and Grooveriding have pointed out, a single GPU won't even cut it with max settings, which means compromises. In that case, getting the fastest single GPU around the price of a GTX670 for another $20-40 may be preferably. The extra overclocking headroom of the 7970 may allow it to squeeze those extra 4-5 fps which could be huge when the card is struggling.

Having said that, I see Newegg has a GTX670 for $370 after a $30 gift card. If the OP can't afford to spend > $400, this could be another option.
Reference GTX 670 cooler are terrible. There is a very annoying humming noise coming from the fan, even in idle. This is due to the fan being mounted in a plastic housing. The reference GTX 670 cards are also known for coilwhine.

Never recommend a reference GTX 670 to anyone. I wouldn't want it even for my worst enemy

GTX 670's based on GTX 680 PCB/Cooler or other non-reference designs/coolers are mostly fine.
 

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
0
0
To OP, a GTX 670 will be fine for 2560x1400. But as others already said, you may have to compromise settings in some games.

RussianSensation came with some suggestions and have many good arguments, I see nothing wrong in that. OP will at least learn something from it, if he did not already know.
 
Last edited:

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
I own a GTX 670 and I am currently gaming at 2560x1440 and played:

Batman AA & AC
BF3
Crysis and Crysis Warhard
LA Noire
Saints Row the 3rd
StarCraft 2
Shogun 2

My GTX 670 runs games at 2560x1440 well... I do turn off AA or MSAA because I don't need these features at 2560x1440...
 

sanzen07

Senior member
Feb 15, 2007
402
1
0
OP here, thanks for the input guys, I think my question has been answered :)

Continue slapping each other about as you wish ;)
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,733
513
126
www.facebook.com
I didn't disregard the 670. In Post #5 I said:

"GTX670 is a good card, but in this case HD7970 series is superior to GTX670 at 2560x1440/1600."

Also, what's the point of getting a $400+ card and not using Anti-aliasing? In that case why not get an HD7870 for $250? At this resolution, 880mhz HD7950 is cheaper and just as fast for $90 less or HD7970 1000-1100mhz is faster for $20-40 more. If the OP only wants the 670, no problem. I don't see how this thread is any different than if a person asked if FX8120/8150 is good enough for gaming. Yes, it is, but is it as good as the alternative?
I have said card, and in games where 4x incurs too much of a performance penalty, I really do not feel like I am missing out on anything with AA not enabled.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
746
126
I have said card, and in games where 4x incurs too much of a performance penalty, I really do not feel like I am missing out on anything with AA not enabled.
I get that and the same would apply to GTX680 and 7970. Having said that, when a quiet, aftermarket 1000mhz HD7970 is going for $420 with 3 free games, 3GB of VRAM (bonus for GTA V and SKYRIM Mods), has faster performance out of the box, and better overclocking headroom than the GTX670, the 670 makes little sense. It made a lot of sense for 2-3 months when 7970s were going for $480-500+, but not anymore. I don't see how buying a slower card with worse overclocking and less VRAM when spending $400+ is a valid reason to choose the 670 right now for a gaming enthusiast unless someone wants specific NV features (PhysX, 3D Vision Surround, Adaptive Vsync) or is going for SLI, which admittedly is smoother than CF. With aftermarket 7970s dropping to $420, GTX670 needs a price cut because really a 1000mhz 7970 is more of a competitor to the 680 not the 670. And the fact that 7970 pays for itself with bitcoin mining is an extra special bonus should someone pursue that route.
 
Last edited:

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
0
0
I get that and the same would apply to GTX680 and 7970. Having said that, when a quiet, aftermarket 1000mhz HD7970 is going for $420 with 3 free games, 3GB of VRAM (bonus for GTA V and SKYRIM Mods), and it has better overclocking headroom than the GTX670, I am sorry but the 670 makes no sense. It made a lot of sense for 2-3 months, but not anymore. I don't see how buying a slower card when spending $400+ is a valid reason to choose the 670 right now. With aftermarket 7970s dropping to $420, GTX670 needs a price cut because really a 1000mhz 7970 is more of a competitor to the 680 not the 670. And the fact that 7970 pays for itself with bitcoin mining is an extra extra special bonus. :D
Has it ever occured to you that some just prefer Nvidia cards? :biggrin:

Edit: Another thing, some may wanna go SLI later on. It is a known fact Crossfire has much more microstuttering and issues VS SLI.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
746
126
Has it ever occured to you that some just prefer Nvidia cards? :biggrin:
Yes. I obviously understand that there are Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality relationships between a consumer and his/her buying behaviour; and studies have shown that "Those who rate their attachment to a brand to be a 9 or 10 on the scale are the brand's most loyal prospects."

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss the products in the VG forum, especially if there is a better alternative. The OP can choose what he/she ultimately deems best based on his/her use/budget/preferences. Also, we do not need to assume that all videocard buyers will use emotional attachment to the brand as the most important criteria when making their videocard purchases. Some may, some may use rational thought process instead (like not buying a GTX280 over a 5870 because "NV > AMD").

I also feel if this thread included FX8120/8150 for gaming, then anyone who advised the OP to get an i5 2500K/i5 3570K wouldn't get the type of responses which I got in this thread for recommending the 7970 over the 670. If you notice, for 2-3 generations now people have trouble recommending AMD cards on our forum for some reason, despite AMD blowing away NV in price/performance during HD4800/5800 and 6900 series. Maybe later as you'll see more of my posts, you'll see that I really value price/performance and won't hesitate to recommend NV or AMD depending on market prices/competitive positioning in the marketplace at a point in time. Last 2-3 months I recommended the 670 over the 7970 without any questions asked.

Another thing, some may wanna go SLI later on. It is a known fact Crossfire has much more microstuttering and issues VS SLI.
Agreed. In this thread, the OP never mentioned dual-GPUs.
 
Last edited:

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
5,337
991
126
whatever you choose OP, I wish you luck. 7950 and 670, as well as 7970 would all be good enough. What card you want to get is up to you, we will just try to give you some info to make an informed decision.
 

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
0
0
Even though dual GPU's are not mentioned, people may want it later down the road.

Some people are not emotionally attached to Nvida cards, they just prefer Nvidia's drivers/driver support and control panel over AMD's. Also, som like to have PhysX, even though not many games support it. Batman gives a few extra cool PhysX effects.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
I have said card, and in games where 4x incurs too much of a performance penalty, I really do not feel like I am missing out on anything with AA not enabled.
This isn't 1998, I need AA for games to not look terrible.
 
Last edited:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
200
106
What? Isn't anyone going to mention the 7970 uses more power? I see we've got the crossfire and drivers suxors in there. Oh, and dev relations. You got to mention Dev relations, and how GPU compute no longer matters. You all are slipping. :p
 

turn_pike

Senior member
Mar 4, 2012
316
0
71
Speaking as someone who is not always up to date on the latest hardware benchmark and pricing:
I will always want to be notified by the more knowledgeable AT member of superior alternative at similar pricing.

The only caveat being that the advice should be solicited in respectful and informative manner.
 

Jacky60

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2010
1,123
0
0
Russian he didn't ask about comparisons to the hd7970. He specifically asked about the gtx670. And when you're linking games that are scoring ~45fps with 4xAA enabled no matter what card you're talking about, 4xAA should be disabled.

But anyways, back to the OP's question, I have the gtx670 and yes it's good for 2560x1440.
You're correct he didn't ask, If he'd asked if a F8150 Bulldozer was OK for games at 2560/1440 I guess you would just blithely say "yes it is".

A 670 would be OK, as would a bulldozer 8150 CPU BUT the OP could get a better card that would be 20% better for $20 more. Why is that so difficult to understand? Forums like this are imho to inform people of stuff they don't know and to HELP other gamers get the best value and gaming experience for their money not to help Nvidia execs buy private jets by recommending inferior products.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
0
0
Ya, I get that. But the argument of turning down settings is almost a circular reference. Why not get an HD7870 for $250 and turn down settings and save $120-150 over the 670? It goes both ways. A faster card is a faster card and when we are talking about 20% performance edge for $20-40 extra, I think it's material.
I am seeing 10 percent faster with x4 AA.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/4/

Unless one uses x8 AA at 2560 x 1600.

There is a distinction.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
746
126
So even 10% for $20-40 extra doesn't count as worthwhile? Then why get the 670 in the first place. HD7970 $310 is $90 cheaper and is easily within 10% of the 670. The 670 is in an awkward place now - 7950 is substantially cheaper with immense overclocking headroom, and 1000-1100mhz HD7970s are just $20-40 more and are faster.

Regardless, from your own graph, HD7970 GE 1050mhz is 20% faster than a GTX670. Here is an 1100mhz HD7970 for $440, Or a 1000mhz HD7970 Giga 3x for $420. This is what the discussion has been about for 3 pages. I wasn't comparing a stock HD7970 in this entire thread since I specifically linked 2 factory preoverclocked 7970 cards for around the price of a 670. It's about spending $20-40 more for 15-20% more performance out of the box. Now add more overclocking on top of that and you'll still have ~10-15% delta even after overclocking the 670.

Now I know you'll say well you can buy a GTX670 overclocked or a GTX680 overclocked from the factory too. This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. HD7970 at 1050mhz still beats both of those options at 2560x1600. Tested here.

Like I said, GTX670/680 are amazing cards for 1080P/1200P, but at higher resolution, HD7970 1000-1100mhz beats both of them. This is no different then when GTX580 was great for 1080P but that performance advantage largely faded at 2560x1600 against the 6970. GTX670/680 cards have 192GB/sec memory bandwidth, and it seems to be a factor at high resolutions. It's interesting you won't admit that AMD makes the better card for 2560x1440/1600 since Anandtech, TechPowerup, Computerbase, TechReport, H4TU, Xbitlabs, BitTech have all shown this to be the case for single-GPU scenarios. Although as blackened23 and Grooveriding have alluded to earlier, most people will want 2 cards for 2560x1440/1600, in which case the ball shifts to NV imo since SLI has less micro-stutter and prob. better SLI driver support (although in Triple Monitor the 670/680 cards run out of 2GB of VRAM way too often, which puts the ball back to AMD for 3 screens).
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY