Any news on nvidia 7xx?

go for the gtx 690 or titan. i thought i was gonna have problems with 690 quad sli, but boy does it plow through anything. Im running crysis 3 with ~90 fps avg on 2560x1600 with everything maxed including pixel accurate displacement mapping.
 
Yea if I had $1000 to blow on a GPU I would. I got that monitor for $500 used. The problem that I am having is not GPU horsepower. (I don't need everything fully maxed) but I need it to have enough memory to drive that big of a display. I heard that the 7 series will have 3gb standard as well as a bigger memory bus. I can get that now on some cards but it will cost a lot.
 
salvage-this said:
Yea if I had $1000 to blow on a GPU I would. I got that monitor for $500 used. The problem that I am having is not GPU horsepower. (I don't need everything fully maxed) but I need it to have enough memory to drive that big of a display. I heard that the 7 series will have 3gb standard as well as a bigger memory bus. I can get that now on some cards but it will cost a lot.
Click to expand...

you can get 600 series cards with 3 and 4gbs of ram or 7000 series from amd, why wait until mid next year most likely to get it?
 
Given that I can't crank up the settings for some of the games that I have 2gb is mostly ok for now. Money is really the reason I want to wait. A 680 4gb is still $550 and up. Completely maxed settings at this resolution is expensive. I don't really have tons of time to make a huge GPU investment worth it. Most of my time is spent either at work, or working on my networking degree.

AMD 7xxx would be good but after all of the troubles that I had with my 6950, I just do not want to go back to AMD. They have the specs that I am looking for at a good price but working with AMD CCC and getting Linux working is just a huge hassle to me.
 
Isn't there a bottlenexk with the 192 bit interface with the 660 ti's at higher resolutions? I might have that wrong but I heard that even the 680s were being held back by the 256 bit interface.
 
IDK, might be true. Supposedly AMD has gotten their shite together with the 7000's but i think CCC is still troublesome and Linux support probably hasn't improved. I guess you just have to wait, you can use regular 1080p for now or something
 
Dont forget, the res of the monitor is what needs vRam, not size ;) A 7950 wou,d be great at that resoulution for under $500. What problems did you have with your 6950? I think the 7XX series might not be around until late 2013 or early 2014.
battlefield 2 2560.png
 
Last edited:
PCunicorn said:
Dont forget, the res of the monitor is what needs vRam, not size ;) A 7950 wou,d be great at that resoulution for under $500. What problems did you have with your 6950? I think the 7XX series might not be around until late 2013 or early 2014.
battlefield 2 2560.png
Click to expand...

We both know, generally if you have over 1000 posts you dont have to tell people things like that.

He said CCC sucked and no linux support were the main problems.
 
PCunicorn said:
Dont forget, the res of the monitor is what needs vRam, not size ;) A 7950 would be great at that resolution for under $500. What problems did you have with your 6950? I think the 7XX series might not be around until late 2013 or early 2014.
Click to expand...

I still need to talk with the users that have 1600 screens to see what VRAM usage they are getting in current games. Right now I have some games that will be limited with my 2gb

My issue with the 6950 was not the performance, it was the software and stability. In Windows, CCC caused problems with web browsers showing graphics incorrectly (on my 4850) The solution was to reinstall the drivers without CCC. So my choice was no configuration menu or stability. I was finding that I was getting different stability with GPU overclocks depending on what version of the drivers I was using.

Now if AMD really has made huge improvements on their drivers then I can drop those points for Windows. I'll have to talk with NyxCharon to see how the linux drivers are working.

On nvidias side, I want to use the new features that are in the 6xx series. FXAA and TXAA will be a big help when I can't take the performance hit of higher levels of AA. Same with Adaptive V-Sync.

At this resolution I should be looking for 670/680 4gb SLI or 7950/7970 Crossfire. As I've stated before I don't get to play games enough to make spending $800 or more on GPUs justifiable for me. Although $600 for 7950 Crossfire does seem pretty tempting :P
 
4GB Vram, good OC potential.

You seem to be budgeting for a single card, so one of these has to be the pick of the bunch (one of the earlier cards with EVbot compatibility), without going for a Titan. A 680 Classy should be able to push 1600p.

Only problem is that you would have to get it secondhand. But to be honest, any 670/680 4GB would do the trick unless you really wanted to wait until the next gen of cards.
 
Last edited:
I was debating between the 3GB 7970 and 2GB 670 for my new rig, which uses a 2560x1440 resolution. From everything I found online, including benchmarks and peoples opinions based on experience, the larger VRAM definitely helps at those resolutions. In fact, go to a GPU comparison site and compare the 3GB 7970 to a 2GB 670 and you'll see that in many games the 670 is similar or better than the 7970 at normal resolutions, but once you get above 1920x1080 the 7970 really starts to perform better, or the margin gets even closer.
 
WRXGuy1 said:
I was debating between the 3GB 7970 and 2GB 670 for my new rig, which uses a 2560x1440 resolution. From everything I found online, including benchmarks and peoples opinions based on experience, the larger VRAM definitely helps at those resolutions. In fact, go to a GPU comparison site and compare the 3GB 7970 to a 2GB 670 and you'll see that in many games the 670 is similar or better than the 7970 at normal resolutions, but once you get above 1920x1080 the 7970 really starts to perform better, or the margin gets even closer.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the higher memory bus speed helps as well.
 
Spesh- I see your point but that is still a bit more than I rally want to spend. Maybe if I wait long enough I can get one of those pretty cheap.

WRXGuy1- I was seeing that as well. I knew that more memory and a wider bus would eventually overtake a 2gb/256 bit card.

Spirit- I'm not hating on AMD. I just want to be sure that I am going to get my moneys worth out of whatever card I get. From my past experience with AMD/ATI I was not impressed. I was impressed with my 560TI. As I posted earlier the features of the nvidia cards will allow be to bridge the performance gap slightly better when using a single card at that resolution. If I can still get a good amount of power at a lower cost I am not really opposed to that.


So for the people that have 1440 or 1600 monitors can you tell me what your VRAM usage is most of the time? Since I will not be getting multiple monitors at 1600 is there a good reason to go for a 6gb card over 3gb/4gb? I don't mind doing the overclocking myself so I could save a bit of money get a good 7950 3gb. Take a bit of a performance hit compared to the premium cards but, I would also be saving almost $250.

If 3gb is not going to be enough, I guess I'll have to pay the premium. I am just hoping to cut the cost a bit when I do decide to jump to a new card.
 
3GB is enough for that resolution for almost any game with all the eye candy turned on. Nvidia cards seem to manage their Vram a bit better than AMD, so you can get away with slightly less memory on GTX.

The only game I have tested so far which exceeds 3GB usage @ 1600P is Crysis 3. This was with some crazy high settings though. BF3 hovers around 2.5GB usage when maxed.
 
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to assume that Crysis 3 is pretty tough to play at the settings that would use over 3gb of VRAM. More than one card can really do easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top