What GPU for 2560x1440 resolution?

[Meka690]

get 2x 670 directcuII, is cheaper than a 690 and is pretty the same perfomance, no problem running game using only one gpu... because their dont need that power , i run 3monitor at 5760x1080p, on battlefeild3 setting high detail,v-sync,SSA, 60 fps. no problem running bf3 on 2560x1440 at ultra!

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Not all 2500k/2600k hit 4.5, but almost all do 4.2 at low volts.

 

[Rensje]

On the topic of CPU overclocking, is that really necessary when you play with v-sync turned on ALL the time? The way I understand it works is that your CPU at lower clocks might not be able to keep up with the sheer amount of frames a fast GPU can render. However, if I'm going to limit my FPS to 60 (because the monitor is 60hz anyway) why would I want to overclock? My CPU can keep up just fine the way it is.

 

[ShintaiDK]

get 2x 670 directcuII, is cheaper than a 690 and is pretty the same perfomance, no problem running game using only one gpu... because their dont need that power , i run 3monitor at 5760x1080p, on battlefeild3 setting high detail,v-sync,SSA, 60 fps. no problem running bf3 on 2560x1440 at ultra!

Consider my experience with a single GTX680. I would say buy one and see how it goes, then buy second if needed.

 

[ShintaiDK]

On the topic of CPU overclocking, is that really necessary when you play with v-sync turned on ALL the time? The way I understand it works is that your CPU at lower clocks might not be able to keep up with the sheer amount of frames a fast GPU can render. However, if I'm going to limit my FPS to 60 (because the monitor is 60hz anyway) why would I want to overclock? My CPU can keep up just fine the way it is.

It only works so when minimum FPS in all situations is 60. Not the average.

 

[Rensje]

It only works so when minimum FPS in all situations is 60. Not the average.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you are saying here. Could you explain please?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you are saying here. Could you explain please?

When you see 60fps, I assume you watch some ingame number. That number tends to be the average FPS. In case of your system suddenly have to load something else in the scene and decompress textures, you then need more CPU power, also the scene buildup requires alittle more. Any extra mobs/NPCs will also increase system load.

For the GPU the same thing is in place, tho alittle different. In this case minimum FPS can still drop masssively down to 15 or 20FPS so you experience lag even tho the average is 60FPS. Vsync however also lower the load so any frames over 60 wont be rendered, thus saving alittle bit on the CPU as well.

But again, specially for the CPU there is alot of extra factors. AI aint affected by FPS for example. Neither is texture loading and so on. And minimum FPS is the key factor. If the minimum FPS is above 30, then you usually wont notice anything. hence why people tend to go for the high FPS to have a big enough buffer for that to stay so.

V-sync also fixes tearing issues.

 

[Rensje]

In most games, my framerates go up into the hundreds (I use Fraps to monitor fps) without v-sync. That's great, but my current monitor is 60Hz so all frames above 60 are essentially wasted. On top of that I get pretty bad screen tearing without v-sync, hence why I use v-sync. With v-sync on I can maintain a steady 60fps in any game at 1080p, so clearly my CPU is performing fine.

What I want to know is this: if I upgrade to a 1440p monitor and a GTX 690, will my stock clocked CPU bottleneck the graphics card if I use v-sync? Or will it be fine, just like it is now?

I really like the idea of the 690 but I need to know for sure that it will work like a charm in my system before I even consider putting in that kind of money.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You will most likely be fine. Resolution doesnt effect the CPU much at all.