Single monitor 2560x1600. Which GPU ....

Abz Hussain · 15 Mar 2013 at 10:03

bemaniac said:
Huh.......I've been running games with everything apart from the extreme AA settings and games have been playable for me with a 7970ghz. Battlefield, tomb raider, crysis, ff14 ARR, and loads more like alan wake. I get mostly 60fps but with sleeping dogs with AA maybe 50fps which is nice and fluid and tomb raider is the only one that taxed the card down to 30fps in normal gameplay which is fine for a slow paced adventure game like that. Upcoming games for 3 years though you will need to crossfire that existing card for £200 and you'll have more power than a £900 titan. To be fair £500 for secondhand trifire 7950s is just an amazing bargain right now.

This at 2560x1600 yeh?

Diagro · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:25

he does have a point, I use a 7970 on a Hazro 1600P Monitor and all games run fine.

just have to make sure i pull AA off when it struggles.

To be ready for the next few years you will need a second 7950 tbh

Abz Hussain · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:32

Maybe a single overclocked 7970 sounds like what i need possibly. Or will that too struggle in a year or so time?

Diagro · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:35

Abz Hussain said:
Maybe a single overclocked 7970 sounds like what i need possibly. Or will that too struggle in a year or so time?

Its too hard to say, a 7970 @ 1200Mhz does struggle with crysis 3....

It struggles with Tomb Raider on MAX as well, but that can be expected as they are around 18months old...

I would personally wait and stick with a 7950 until the next gen comes out from AMD or Nvidia and see what they are like.

LtMatt · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:38

Abz Hussain said:
Maybe a single overclocked 7970 sounds like what i need possibly. Or will that too struggle in a year or so time?

At 1440p 1200/1719 it handles everything with ease providing you don't run x8-x4 AA. You don't need high amounts of AA at this res. Though a graphics whore might disagree. Most of the best games are all gaming evolved titles at the moment and they all run extremely well on my system.

arc@css · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:41

It depends on what you expect from a graphics card. If you're happy with low to no AA / FXAA (due to the res), and don't mind sub 60fps, then I think an overclocked 7950 / 7970 should do the job well.

For me, as long as my eyes aren't being strained, and the frame rate is smooth / all other settings bar AA are maxed, I'm satisfied. Now, I appreciate I'm on 1200p not 1440 or 1600, but I don't see why a 7950 even without an overclock wouldn't handle most scenarios.

I would've thought that driving games, which is what you said you usually indulge in, are not the most resource hungry games?

Abz Hussain · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:03

arc@css said:
It depends on what you expect from a graphics card. If you're happy with low to no AA / FXAA (due to the res), and don't mind sub 60fps, then I think an overclocked 7950 / 7970 should do the job well.

For me, as long as my eyes aren't being strained, and the frame rate is smooth / all other settings bar AA are maxed, I'm satisfied. Now, I appreciate I'm on 1200p not 1440 or 1600, but I don't see why a 7950 even without an overclock wouldn't handle most scenarios.

I would've thought that driving games, which is what you said you usually indulge in, are not the most resource hungry games?

Your right the driving games are not hungry on the gpu. Its my desire to play crysis, battlefield 3 and the like that i worry about my single card not being able to cope at my 1600 res. I would want at least 60 fps on any game I play. I know some say 30 fps is playable but its just not smooth enough for my liking.
F1 2012 gives me 79 fps in 1600 with aa off. Overclocked at 1200/1600 i get 120fps but fan noise is just crazy and temps get into the high 80s with vrm even higher.
Crysis, BF3 are a lot more intense as you guys are aware.
I prefer the single card solution as it means only one waterblock as opposed to two and the added cost. If however twin cards is the only realistic solution then i will consider it as long as i can get a couple of years minimum out of them, if not more.
I would consider a low amount if AA/AF.

BaDBoY_uK · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:07

Diagro · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:36

if you want a single card for a single block then try a 7990 mate

arc@css · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:39

Abz Hussain said:
Your right the driving games are not hungry on the gpu. Its my desire to play crysis, battlefield 3 and the like that i worry about my single card not being able to cope at my 1600 res. I would want at least 60 fps on any game I play. I know some say 30 fps is playable but its just not smooth enough for my liking.
F1 2012 gives me 79 fps in 1600 with aa off. Overclocked at 1200/1600 i get 120fps but fan noise is just crazy and temps get into the high 80s with vrm even higher.
Crysis, BF3 are a lot more intense as you guys are aware.
I prefer the single card solution as it means only one waterblock as opposed to two and the added cost. If however twin cards is the only realistic solution then i will consider it as long as i can get a couple of years minimum out of them, if not more.
I would consider a low amount if AA/AF.

You could max out AF without any penalty, but to achieve 60fps + I think, as others have said, dual gpu / card is the only solution for more demanding titles at your res. If I was in your shoes, I'd drop another 7950 in. It's either that or a 7990 / 690.

The good news in your case, is that it'll be a big bonus if you can live with less than maximum AA.

Rusty0611 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:52

Abz Hussain said:
Maybe a single overclocked 7970 sounds like what i need possibly. Or will that too struggle in a year or so time?

Not worth it over a 7950. The difference between an overclocked 7950 and overclocked 7970 is only around 5% give or take. It's not going to be the difference between playable and unplayable.

The best thing to do is sell your card at the start when the next range of cards come out and buy the next top end card then. This way you always have the best GPU and you spread the cost over a period of time as you'll make a decent amount back from the old card.

Diagro · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:54

Rusty0611 said:
Not worth it over a 7950. The difference between an overclocked 7950 and overclocked 7970 is only around 5% give or take. It's not going to be the difference between playable and unplayable.

Depends if the 7950 is a crap clocker vs a 7970 that is

You will always pop up with the same stuff to spout :rolleyes:

Abz Hussain · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:54

arc@css said:
You could max out AF without any penalty, but to achieve 60fps + I think, as others have said, dual gpu / card is the only solution for more demanding titles at your res. If I was in your shoes, I'd drop another 7950 in. It's either that or a 7990 / 690.

The good news in your case, is that it'll be a big bonus if you can live with less than maximum AA.

Yes at the moment it looks like a other 7950 is the way to go. The 7990/gtx690 pricing is hard to justify for myself personally. As kaapstad said it is an expensive single card solution.
And yes, i think i could live with less AA.

Rusty0611 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:56

Diagro said:
Depends if the 7950 is a crap clocker vs a 7970 that is

You will always pop up with the same stuff to spout

Doesn't make it any less true just because it upsets you to hear it.

If the 7970 is a crap clocker and the 7950 is a good clocker then the reverse could apply.

Saying what you have said above, is so blindlingly obvious it's pretty pointless stating it.

Abz Hussain said:
And yes, i think i could live with less AA.

Could just use FXAA via an injector if the game doesn't support it. It obviously isn't as good as MSAA but it should be more than sufficient for 2560*1440/1660. Very cheap to run as well. Will barely dent performance at all.

Abz Hussain · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:59

Rusty0611 said:
Not worth it over a 7950. The difference between an overclocked 7950 and overclocked 7970 is only around 5% give or take. It's not going to be the difference between playable and unplayable.

The best thing to do is sell your card at the start when the next range of cards come out and buy the next top end card then. This way you always have the best GPU and you spread the cost over a period of time as you'll make a decent amount back from the old card.

Any idea when the next gen is due. Im under the understanding its going to be very late 2013 or early 2014?
Also, what the depreciation value on gpus out of sheer curiosity?

LtMatt · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:59

Diagro said:
Depends if the 7950 is a crap clocker vs a 7970 that is

You will always pop up with the same stuff to spout

7970 5-10% faster at the same clocks.

7970's will clock much higher on the memory so looking at least another 5% id imagine on that alone. Core will generally go a bit higher on the 7970 as well.

Davepen · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:59

I run on 2560x1440, initially on a single 680, but it wasn't enough, so I moved to 680sli.

You will need to go crossfire, especially if you have any want to run with any AA.

Rusty0611 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:02

Abz Hussain said:
Any idea when the next gen is due. Im under the understanding its going to be very late 2013 or early 2014?
Also, what the depreciation value on gpus out of sheer curiosity?

No idea. Looking towards the end of year by the looks of it. I know as much as the next guy on this.

LtMatt said:
7970 5-10% faster at the same clocks.

7970's will clock much higher on the memory so looking at least another 5% id imagine on that alone. Core will generally go a bit higher on the 7970 as well.

It's only 7970 owners who try and over-egg the difference

. Rather than have another pointless debate of percentages which equate to 1-2 FPS either way, the point was more that if it isn't playable on an overclocked 7950 it isn't playable on an overclocked 7970 either. Three of my 7950s out of 5 went to 1250/1750 comfortably anyway. I didn't go any higher on the memory because I couldn't be bothered to test if correction was kicking in but it is probable that they could have gone higher.

Edit: 7970 PCB versions which are still readily available

LtMatt · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:05

Rusty0611 said:
No idea. Looking towards the end of year by the looks of it. I know as much as the next guy on this.

It's only 7970 owners who try and over-egg the difference . Rather than have another pointless debate of percentages which equate to 1-2 FPS either way, the point was more that if it isn't playable on an overclocked 7950 it isn't playable on an overclocked 7970 either.

Don't make me ramp up the memory to prove you wrong Rusty.

I'm fairly confident in my prediction.

I agree though in principal that if its not playable on a 7950 it won't be on a 7970. Though it wouldn't surprise if there are a couple of exceptions to this rule, as unlikely as that might seem.

Rusty0611 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:06

LtMatt said:
Though it wouldn't surprise if there are a couple of exceptions to this rule, as unlikely as that might seem.

Of course. General rules of thumb like that rarely hold true in ALL cases. What makes them general rules of thumb is that they do in MOST cases

. An uber Lightning could for example surpass my GB WF by a comfortable 10% but if the Lightning is getting 90 FPS my GB WF is still getting ~80 FPS.

If the Lightning is getting 60 FPS my GB WF is still getting 54 FPS and this is towards the very top end of the differences you can see.

More realistically it'll be:

7970: 90 FPS
7950: 85 FPS

7970: 60 FPS
7950: 57 FPS

It doesn't automatically make a 7970 not worth it but it does, in my eyes, not make it worth it for somebody to upgrade from a 7950 to a 7970.