Triple monitors on single 680?

MonsterMoshi · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:41

With uni fast approaching I am planning on switching my system to an ITX format, likely using the prodigy. But I need to know what I can expect gameplay wise from a single water cooled and overclocked GTX 670 or 680 if I use a triple screen setup?
All monitors would be at 1080p and this would be in games such as Battlefield 3 GTA 4 and 5 so it is for very demanding games.

Thanks

oldestgregg · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:46

I think you will struggle due to lack of vram. Current games, you might just manage but I think with the likes of GTAV it will be a bit of a push. It will manage if you dont mind knocking some of those settings down a few notches. Have you thought about a 7970? The extra vram is beneficial at that resolution.

shankly1985 · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:54

Is GTA5 even coming to PC? anything been said over that yet.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:55

You would be better off getting a 7950 and overclocking, or a 7970 for multiple monitor performance.

They're cheaper and perform better.

MonsterMoshi · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:56

If VRAM is the limiting factor then there is the option of the 4GB version if that is likely to yield better performance
I would like to stick with nvidia if possible with water cooling in such a small space, I hear AMD cards tend to run warmer

MonsterMoshi · 21 Jan 2013 at 17:58

shankly1985 said:
Is GTA5 even coming to PC? anything been said over that yet.

They would be foolish not to bring it to PC!
GTA 4 is orders of magnitude better on PC than on console

oldestgregg · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:00

Not under water.You will still be limited by bandwidth on the 4gb AFAIK as the 680 is still bottlenecked at higher resolutions.
shankly-Either PC gamer or RPS reported its likely as amazon have put up pre orders for it. I think the petition for it has got pretty high numbers now. I know its not defo but if it were to come to pc......remember IV when that arrived? I know it was buggy as hell but it was hog none the less.

MonsterMoshi · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:09

Looking at some benchmarks I just found on Hexus
It shows that the 2GB 680 is almost consistently outperforming the 7970
S I would have thought that the 4GB is even faster?

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:12

MonsterMoshi said:
If VRAM is the limiting factor then there is the option of the 4GB version if that is likely to yield better performance
I would like to stick with nvidia if possible with water cooling in such a small space, I hear AMD cards tend to run warmer

With watercooling, the difference in temps will be negligible.

VRAM and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, so whilst a 4GB card won't be VRAM limited, it'll still be limited by the 256bit memory bus, which means that the cards are basically gimped at high resolution.

Also, the benchmarks you'll have seen will be old ones using old drivers that are no long relevant.

On the most recent drivers, the 7970 is consistently the better performer.

OptimaLnrg · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:24

A single 680 doesn't have the processing capacity to run settings at 5760x1080 that will exceed 2gbs of vram.

You could game over 3 screens for less demanding games but switch to 1 screen for more demanding games?

F1aw1ess · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:25

i can play 5760x1080 bf3 on my heavily overclocked single 670 on low settings, on higher settings before it hits the vram limit it runs out of horsepower.

I also play ME3, BL2, Cars all @ 5760x1080 with no issues at all, its just a balancing act with the settings to keep it at a solid 60fps

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:28

F1aw1ess said:
i can play 5760x1080 bf3 on my heavily overclocked single 670 on low settings, on higher settings before it hits the vram limit it runs out of horsepower.

I also play ME3, BL2, Cars all @ 5760x1080 with no issues at all, its just a balancing act with the settings to keep it at a solid 60fps

That's down to the limited memory bandwidth.

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:39

F1aw1ess said:
i can play 5760x1080 bf3 on my heavily overclocked single 670 on low settings, on higher settings before it hits the vram limit it runs out of horsepower.

It don't.

Even with two GPUs you hit the processing power limit (GPU/memory bandwidth) before you hit the VRAM limit unless you like minimum FPS in the 20s.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:19

Rusty0611 said:
It don't.

Even with two GPUs you hit the processing power limit (GPU/memory bandwidth) before you hit the VRAM limit unless you like minimum FPS in the 20s.

There isn't really a causation between GPU power and memory usage that works in that way.

The VRAM limit isn't necessarily dictated by the GPU's capability as the VRAM can be filled up with content that isn't GPU heavy.

Increasing the GPU power doesn't also mean that the VRAM limit is hit quicker either.

There's a correlation, sure, but more GPU power will mean more FPS, and RAM won't be a deciding factor in that as long as the memory bandwidth is good, and the RAM isn't full.

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:22

spoffle said:
There isn't really a causation between GPU power and memory usage that works in that way.

The VRAM limit isn't necessarily dictated by the GPU's capability as the VRAM can be filled up with content that isn't GPU heavy.

Increasing the GPU power doesn't also mean that the VRAM limit is hit quicker either.

There's a correlation, sure, but more GPU power will mean more FPS, and RAM won't be a deciding factor in that as long as the memory bandwidth is good, and the RAM isn't full.

True but it in all the games I tested I was hitting other bottlenecks before the physical VRAM amount came into it.

I was just over simplifying how it works for times sake

. With the 670s/680s you're hitting other bottlenecks which causes low FPS causing you to reduce settings which in turn removes you well away from the 2GB limit. This holds true for 2GB cards.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:26

Hitting other bottlenecks before the VRAM limit are certainly a factor and is true, I agree there.

It was just the notion that more GPUs you have, the closer it brings you to hitting the VRAM limit that I found a bit off, as the available GPU power itself pulls the VRAM limit closer.

Not to say it can't, but it would take a specific situation, like more GPU power being available allows you to use higher in game settings, higher levels of AA, AF and so on, which would correlate GPU usage with VRAM usage, but wouldn't indicate causation.

But yeah, keeping things simple and all, not something I'm particularly good at

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:37

spoffle said:
It was just the notion that more GPUs you have, the closer it brings you to hitting the VRAM limit that I found a bit off, as the available GPU power itself pulls the VRAM limit closer.

Don't think I implied that did I? If I did it wasn't my intention...

Nuclear Fusion · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:48

A single 680 won't be enough to max demanding games on triple screens, if you don't already have a 680, I'd say 7950 CF would be a much better option as it is faster than 680 SLI on triple screens, whilst costing not much more than a single 680.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:55

Rusty0611 said:
Don't think I implied that did I? If I did it wasn't my intention...

That's how I read it, but if it wasn't what you meant, then fair enough.

MonsterMoshi · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:59

Nuclear Fusion said:
A single 680 won't be enough to max demanding games on triple screens, if you don't already have a 680, I'd say 7950 CF would be a much better option as it is faster than 680 SLI on triple screens, whilst costing not much more than a single 680.

I am planning on using an ITX board as i said in the first post so i only have the option for a single card

It does definitely seem that the 7970 is the way to go despite moral preferences

Especially considering that the 4GB 680 is around £150 more that the 7970!