Graphics Card to Power 2560x1440 Resolution

[JoeOnePack]

Hey guys,

I am looking to purchase the last part of my pc build. The best for the last... The graphics card.

My only concern is that I will be using a Catleap 2560x1440p monitor. I hear that at this resolution, BF3 can use as much as 2.5GB's of VRAM.


I was looking at the following options

Gigabyte GTX 670 Winforce OC 2GB

EVGA GTX 580 Hydro Copper 2 3GB

Sapphire 7970 3GB


Anything else to recommend?

[SKYMTL]

Gigabyte GTX 670 Winforce OC 2GB. We'll have a review of this posted shortly.

It has 95% of the processing of a GTX 680 at a fraction of the cost.

[JoeOnePack]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Gigabyte GTX 670 Winforce OC 2GB. We'll have a review of this posted shortly.

It has 95% of the processing of a GTX 680 at a fraction of the cost.

I hear ya, but is 2GB enough for a 2560x1440p monitor. I also may eventually switch to the overclocked Catleap 100hz edition. I need to take this into account.

How does the 7970 compare to the 670?

[SKYMTL]

You could always grab one of the few GTX 670 4GB cards on the market, though its usefulness will be limited, even on a high def monitor. Currently though, I prefer the GTX 670 for all-round performance, price and overall support (drivers, etc.).

[JoeOnePack]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

You could always grab one of the few GTX 670 4GB cards on the market, though its usefulness will be limited, even on a high def monitor. Currently though, I prefer the GTX 670 for all-round performance, price and overall support (drivers, etc.).

Seems hard to find a second hand 4GB model. I have the ability to grab a MSI Lightning for $400 which I think is a great deal. I can get a 7970 for the same price, even a few $ cheaper.

That is the dilemma. I don't know if 2GB is enough for this resolution.

[Arinoth]

I think you'd be fine with the 2GB model. I'm running a 680, which has 2.5GB memory and it's never been an issue at 2560 x 1440. I can't recall a single game going over/near 2GB that I've played recently so 2GB should be more then enough for you.

[great_big_abyss]

Jesus, you can get a 7970 lightning for $400? I think that changes the equation a little bit, don't you? Do that! No question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Sky was basing his recommendation of the 670 in comparison to a full price 7970. If you can get not only a 7970 for $400, but a Lightning, then go for that.

And yes, if you do decide to go the way of a GTX470, 2GB should be more than enough for you to run that resolution. It's really not that much higher than 1920x1200.

[JoeOnePack]

Originally Posted by great_big_abyss

Jesus, you can get a 7970 lightning for $400? I think that changes the equation a little bit, don't you? Do that! No question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Sky was basing his recommendation of the 670 in comparison to a full price 7970. If you can get not only a 7970 for $400, but a Lightning, then go for that.

And yes, if you do decide to go the way of a GTX470, 2GB should be more than enough for you to run that resolution. It's really not that much higher than 1920x1200.

Let me reiterate. I can get a GTX 670 Lightning for $450. I can get a reference 7970 for $400.

Now battle it out.

[SugarJ]

I run my 2560x1600 U3011 off a GTX580 with 1.5GB memory, haven't noticed any issues. I don't usually crank up the AA though. If I was buying new, it would be a 670. $400 is a fair price on that Lightning though. Are you watercooling? Then pick up a reference model 670, and ignore the cards with custom cooling as you won't be using it.

EDIT: A Lightning 670? Those haven't been released yet.

[great_big_abyss]

Originally Posted by SugarJ

EDIT: A Lightning 670? Those haven't been released yet.

Which is why I assumed it was a 7970 lightning.