Upgradeable graphics card

[BreakfastIsGood]

I'm looking to build a system in the near future. I plan on using a 30" LCD (looking at the u3011). I want to be able to play intensive games at 2560x1600 very well. I will also be adding vertical 1200x1600 screens on either side. They are for work. I'm not set on gaming with them out of the box. It would be nice if I could in the future though.

So, I was thinking either a gtx 680 or a 7970. I could upgrade to a second one later, either for more taxing games, more screens, etc. I've also considered going ahead and getting a 690, but those don't seem to have great reviews.

Most reviews seem to conclude that the gtx 680 is better, but a lot of the benchmarks show the 7970 being better. I've seen various reports of problems for each one, especially in sli/crossfire, and in particular that CF and Skyrim don't mix. I was leaning towards NVIDIA initially because I've used it in the past. AMD is supposed to have

What would be recommended for a 1600p gaming system to as much as possible play every game usably at high settings, and have an upgrade path, with minimal problems? Or is gaming on a screen this size a dumb idea? I really like it for work and general use, but it seems like it's pretty taxing even for very high end graphics cards.

I've been mostly using this benchmark: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/...view-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/11 .

I will be using either a 3770k or 3820. As I understand it there are differences in how they work with GPUs, but they probably aren't significant.

 

[lehtv]

You'll pretty much need a dual GPU setup to run the resolution smoothly at high settings. A highly overclocked Intel CPU is needed to avoid bottlenecking in CPU heavy or poorly optimized games. If you're comfortable with a bit lower settings and don't mind framerate dips, or if you play less demanding games, then you will be just fine with a single card and a lesser CPU OC. I think the 7970 is better for that resolution, the extra VRAM comes in handy and it overclocks better. http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/images/perfrel_2560.gif

Personally I'd much rather have a 2560x1440 27" screen with dual 7970's than a 2560x1600 30" screen with a single 7970. But 1200p peripheral screens don't really go well with that

 

[RaistlinZ]

I hear SLI is smoother than Crossfire. You'll want dual 680's for that resolution and highest settings. An overclocked 3570k or 3770k would be ideal.

 

[BreakfastIsGood]

Right now I see some things swinging either way. I would say most of the benchmarks lean towards 7970, but nvidia has more extra features (physx,etc), and is generally preferred usage wise. Also, I will definitely be playing Skyrim, where I suppose I could turn off CF, but is CF incompatibility limited to Skyrim or is it generally more problematic than SLI?

The 7970 is less expensive, I could probably jump on a second one pretty early, and eventually move to a 3x if needed.

Are the 7970 GHZ or the 680 4GB worth it over the standard models?

Also, I wasn't planning on overclocking, but I'm not totally against it. I am not interested in water cooling but I don't mind buying a huge/noisy fan.

 

[Denithor]

At your resolution, especially once you add in those side panels, you're going to be better off with either the 3GB on the 7970 or buying a 4GB 680. Since you mention Skyrim, more VRAM is definitely better if you plan to use the high res texture pack (true even on a single screen - much more so on multiple panels).