• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

HardOCP 680 Tri-SLI vs 7970 TRIFIRE

no you cant beat the comfort or the sheer size of the image, it's quite clear on 1080p, but what does look bad are old games.... Crysis looks great, but DOOM 3 or the first Serious Sam looks dreadful.... the first FEAR looks bad too......it deffo is not the screen size, it's the quality of the Game that you notice..... FACT!

on full 1080p you can see every crease/ hair etc.... you expand Crysis to 55'' it looks great.... in fact it takes my breath away, but try doing this to DOOM 3 and it looks dreadful, it looks like 720p... it's all blurry and out of focus
 
Rusty0611 said:
You're correct.

Playing on a TV is crazy. For what you pay for a 55" plasma you could get a 40" LED screen for your living room and a 24" 1080p 3D screen. I know what I'd get :p
Click to expand...

40'' is way too small, we have a 42'' here and it's tiny compared to mine at my other house.... and i really do mean tiny, you get used to a huge screen very quickly and after this every other screen looks too small.

but for a clearer image i'm going to drop down to 50''

i want a card that gives more than 60fps, because mine is well below this already and can only do this on medium quality !!!!!!!

plus a modern tv isn't 60 htz....... it's 600 HTZ
http://www.ehow.com/info_12158572_600hz-plasma-vs-120hz-lcd.html

Yes mine is 60 htz, but that's because it's 7 years old
 
Last edited:
gregster said:
Agreed. your TV Mal I guess is 1080P? With all those pixels being stretched to cover 55" it must look jagged. I know when I run my PC through my 40" Sony, it looks no where near as good as my 27" monitor.

This also brings me to the question again, is your TV 3D? I ask because a TV puts out at 60hz and will only display a maximum of 60fps, so my question to you is, why do you want a card that can give over 60fps?

Someone please tell me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

+1. I used my 50 inch plasma for ages and I thought it was great until I got a proper monitor. The colours can't be matched but IQ on a big tele is terrible. Can't beat ~24 inch 1080p for gaming.
 
They really could have done with testing some more high VRAM load games in there - not sure what Batman AC does VRAM wise but DX:HR has texture management that tends to keep the VRAM from being that excessive.
 
Mal X said:
40'' is way too small, we have a 42'' here and it's tiny compared to mine at my other house.... and i really do mean tiny, you get used to a huge screen very quickly and after this every other screen looks too small.

but for a clearer image i'm going to drop down to 50''
Click to expand...

The PPI (pixels per inch) is terrible at that screen size. You aren't going to notice it much in films and TV but in PC games you definitely will. A 23-24" inch monitor is a far better PPI/size balance.

Then again, I say you'll notice the PPI at 50" but you probably won't if you've only ever gamed on a TV. For your money I honestly think you'd get more enjoyment (from 3D, better IQ, 120hz, better screen response) by getting a dedicated PC monitor.

It's not the old games which are making the image look bad on your TV - it's your TV. Granted they aren't going to look as nice as newer games as a matter of course but they should still look nicely apportioned across the screen rather than the pixelated image I'd imagine you're seeing.

Although it is your money and you are free to do as you wish but all I'm saying is don't rule out a proper dedicated gaming monitor over playing on a TV.

Even a cheapish BenQ 60hz 24" monitor would be superior IMO due to the far greater PPI.
 
Last edited:
27"/30" @ 1440p is an excellent balance IMO. If you have the GPU power to drive it.

27" is borderline acceptable for me personally at 1080p but I know a few people that love it.
 
Last edited:
i hate the idea of gaming on a monitor, sitting at a desk, it's so uncomfortable especially when there's a comfy sofa and big screen beside you, it just rubs me up the wrong way.....
 
what input device do you use then?
because I can never find a comfortable position on a sofa with keyboard and mouse

besides which my PC seat is really comfortable as it's an FK racing seat
 
Yeah very few games I could play properly from a sofa... guessing hes using a controller in which case not sure why hes PC gaming.
 
andybird123 said:
what input device do you use then?
because I can never find a comfortable position on a sofa with keyboard and mouse

besides which my PC seat is really comfortable as it's an FK racing seat
Click to expand...

i use an extension for both the mouse and keyboard, the leads are about 7ft long.. the keyboard is on my lap and the mouse is on the sofa on my right... under the sofa cushions is a massive great lump of plywood to keep the cusions level, the 55'' screen is about 9ft away.

my pc is miles away, but you cant use Wireless, the pc can not pick up the signal, it keeps crashing, it's so easy to game as i do, i cant see what the problem is, it's very cosy

picture quality isn't as bad as this lot say, it's about as good as Avatar on 1080p..... it's the game that's the problem, any game over 5 years old looks bad, but Borderlands/ crysis look excellent..... the latest Serious sam looks great, but the original looks dreadful.

guns/ AI look great, as do lighting effects/ explosions etc, they look just like a film..... until you get up really close, then objects start looking bad, even crysis looks bad up close... cups and saucers, telephones, inside rooms etc, but you get used to this.

an old game looks dreadful, it's all out of focus, but a new game only looks bad up close... within 10ft away... the best up close is Borderlands
 
Last edited:
And just like with every other single card up until today, we will never get a thorough and proper review comparing a 2 Gb GTX 680s to 4 Gb GTX 680s at such triple monitor resolutions.
 
To be fair I game on my 24" (1080p) monitor and it is definitely better for me than on my 60" (1080p) plasma, but I certainly wouldn't say that it was a blurry mess.
Of course you have to take into account that when gaming on the monitor my head is only 2'6" away from the monitor, whereas when using the TV my head is about 13' away from the screen. Gaming on the large screen is an awesome experience but for me marred slightly by the way I have the sound setup, only stereo on the TV but full Dolby headphone when using the monitor and I'm not buying another 20 meter cable just for the few times I do get to game on the TV.
 
Locky said:
After google, it seems the issues are to do with multi monitor setups and tri fire is getting good results with single monitor setups.
Click to expand...

There is a definite issue ATM especially on 7xxx with multi monitor.
Also they really need to stop having to mix the interface connection DVI/DP mixture as they don't have the same latency and depending on the monitors it could lead to unfixable tearing.
 
Last edited:
but i tell you what does look bad on my screen.... Xbox or PS3, PC gaming looks great in comparison, it definitely looks better than the normal SD TV image as well, now that really does look bad on a big screen

YEA the problem with a tv is the sound is mega loud without headphones, especially if you have external speakers and a massive base, mine cant go above about a third volume, the windows start rattling like crazy... especially if you play Battlestations Midway and you're on board a Battleship..the noise is just increadible, it's just like thunder.... if you like firing loud guns, then get it
 
Last edited:
We have x2 690's ready to rock and roll (all stock clocks) on a i7-3960X and 5760x1200 (x3 24").
Will report back with some experiences of BF3 soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom