Build Advice Consensus Build at 2560x1440+ resolutions

Welcome I've just gotten back onto the PC building trail due in no small part to a recent Steam sale

What I'm hoping to achieve here is some kind of Consensus on a PC build that can handle some of the latest games at a 2560x1440+ resolutions aka a Dell U2711 27" monitor or larger
The more people here that share a Consensus on a build the more confidence I can have in my invesment.

I'm reluctant to invest so much faith upon any one persons opinions on what will be a £1500+ build with such varying opinions from those who regard them self's as being either on the green team or the red and even the below guides may arguably be sawed one way or anther with some endorsement from AMD or NVIDIA?

I've researched best I could from Tomshardware System Builder Marathon to bit-tech own PC Hardware Buyer's Guide May 2012 they may be somewhat dated at this time.
Perhaps I should just stump up the fee for Custom PC MAG
I've chosen the Premium Player May 2012 guide as a starting point as I'm looking to keep my system quiet but couldn't resist a drop in price on a Intel Core i5-3570K but can be cancelled for a Intel Core i7-3770K if an insurmountable bottle-neck?

Have only just ordered following:
Intel Core i5-3570K @ Amazon offer £153.85 will be Overclocking it to 4.5GHz
Samsung 830 Series 256GB @ Novatech £145.00

The rest are on approval of yourself 's curtsy of bit-tech Hardware Buyer's Guide
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2012/05/18/pc-hardware-buyer-s-guide-may-2012/5
Motherboard: Gigabyte's GA-Z77X-UD5H
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB 1,600MHz DDR3
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 or GTX 670
PSU: Antec High Current Pro 850W
CPU Cooler: Antec Kühler H2O 920
Case: SilverStone FT02B


I've highlighted best I could my dilemma and welcome any and all opinions.

 

Your CPU is fine and will never be a bottleneck.

If anything, its just your PSU that needs to be swapped out. Its far too powerful for your needs. Bit Techs full 670 based system only drew 373w at load, so you should save yourself some cash and get something closer to 550-600w in my opinion.

The 670 offers far better bang for buck, and is almost as fast as the 680, go with that. Other than that your component choices are pretty much spot on.

Game away!

 

A friend of mine has a 30" plus a 24" and his 570 was having trouble driving both he went over to ATI/AMD 7970 and says he no longer has any trouble with things like BF3 Ultra + 1080 MVK on second screen. The 600 series is supposed to be better with handling multi monitor set ups now as the new fermi is more brute force (just add more simpler cores).

 

Maybe go with a 4GB 670.

 

I my self would go the ATI way as I believe they have the most powerful single gpu card at high resolutions for the price. HD7970s are available for 400 US. Thats pretty cheap for the performance. I use both Nvidia and ATI by the way.

 

2GB is okay for 2560x1440 not much breathing room though

Would probably go with 670 SLI if you could get 2 within budget

 

What's a Dremel? is an accurate description of where I'm at, I'm more than happy with a single screen at this time but what your saying does sound right on purely computational tasks AMD seem to be where it's at and as such I'd imagine more capable of running a second screen.

Thank you for brining it up I was thinking the same as on a review on He*us website of the GTX 680 they did raise concern with the low memory relative to the amount of grunt the card has.

Yes I've heard the same thing but assumed it was down to the low memory supplied with the NVIDIA cards but perhaps the higher 4GB cards like EVGA 4GB GeForce GTX 670 Superclocked would remedy this but then again it might come down to the greater computational power AMD card have that sway the balance?

I think your on the money on the GTX 670 as for the PSU perhaps the Antec High Current Pro HCP-750 from Gaming Workhorse May 2012 Build would be more appropriate?

Wow I think I'd like to avoid SLI or crossfire for that matter micro stutter not mention the overhead I think if what your saying is true I'd be better off going all out on a GTX 690 or ATI equivalent but ouch!!£££

Also thank you all for taking the time

 

For all my rant on impartiality it seem I've been somewhat brain washed as Nvidia seem to have larger fan base or at least a more vocal one on most of the forums I've visited for what is regarded as better driver support but I've also heard a few horror stories about Nvidia as well.
I've had little experiance with aether them or AMD.

But I am a herd follower safety in numbers and all that and having looked at a recent CPC mag recommends Geforce GTX 680 on the performance build I am swaying the Nvidia way or at least a GTX 670 but then again I have overlooked ATI cards I think I'll do some more research.
too much choice.

 

with the 600 series they have fixed most dual monitor issues as well. if you look into the new fermi architecture of the 600 series they have reduced the complexity and uped the core number. ie. 400-500 series cores > 600 series cores.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
look at the score of the 580 vs the 680 and then look at how many more cores the 680 has.

GTX 680 GPU Engine Specs:
1536 CUDA Cores
1006 Base Clock (MHz)
1058 Boost Clock (MHz)

VS

GPU Engine Specs:
512 CUDA Cores
772 MHz Graphics Clock (MHz)
1544 MHz Processor Clock (MHz)

Makes me

 

680 7970 perform pretty much the same depending on the type of game your playing.

If bf3 is your thing the 680 rips AMD to pieces ( so does 670 ).

if your never gonna go passed the single screen then a 2gb 680 is more than enough. If you intend to go multiscreen 1 680 isnt gonna cut it anyway ( be that 2gb or 4gb) ( niether will a 7970 for that matter ) as they just dont have the grunt to drive crysis 1 and 2 and bf3 at max settings once you go passed normal resolutions.

reviews have been done between the 680 2gb sli and the 680 4gb sli at stock speeds at the 5700 resolution tested they performed the same ( or within margin for error 1 fps either side).

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22235.html?start=10 ( this is not in english ) but skip all the writing crap and skip to the graphs and the numbers are still in english numbers so readable.

normal 680 in bf3 2560 is 46.1 fps
normal 680 4gb in bf3 2560 is 45.9 fps

at 5760 res

normal 680 in bf3 is 32.1 fps
normal 680 4gb in bf3 is 33.2 fps
7970 is 31 fps

none of the cards in none sli mode can handle any other game tested at this res ignoring anno and skyrim ( anno doesnt require huge fps to play, skyrim is a console port ) ( metro crysis crysis 2 )

 

I'm seeing 7970s going for the same price as GTX 670s right now, making the 7970 the better buy IMO

Plus you should be able to flash the GHZ edition BIOS for even better performance, and you get three free games.

 

There's not a lot in it performance wise, and the power draw of the 7970 is considerably higher than the 670.

For 1440P I'd consider SLI/crossfire whatever you're getting. With a big hi res screen, you'll want all the eye candy on.

 

The relentless march of tech it wasn't long ago I was drooling over the GTX 580 it's the price we all pay for our obsession I'm feeling you pain

Excellent an eloquent answer to my rather messily put question but I have to admit my ignorance at 5700 resolution I didn't even know there was a higher res than 2560x1600 so to reiterate & summarize your words a GTX 680 2gb will run beautifully at full 2560x1440 possibly with some head room?

Personally I'd rather the lower the lower power draw of the of a GTX 670 as pointed out by Pookeyhead. As for flashing a card is something I normally would avoid but it's an intriguing thought does the GHZ edition support as an inbuilt BIOS function for flashing to a say HD 6990?

Bad Pookeyhead do not confuse the newbe any further by contradicting the above rollo My concern is that the GTX 680 might struggle with the native resolution of 2560x1440 on some of the latest game with as you put it all the eye candy on.

Thank you all for the fantastic input
Good karma upon you all and may you be reborn as well hung billionaires in any future reincarnation

 

I'd think a 4GB GTX 670 or a AMD 7970 would be best, they should perform similarly, though I've heard with new drivers the 7970 is actually much faster. Either way, you want to have a bit more than 2GB of VRAM at such a high res, just to give you that headroom. From what I've heard, BF3 can use up about 2.5GB at 2560x1440.

 

People on this forum have tested bf3 with 2gb and 4gb cards there was a difference of less than 1fps between the 680 2gb and the 680 4gb so your point is not really valid.

As i said before

670 680 would be my choice on power draw alone, the days of needing a 300 watt gpu are over ( at least till the ps4 ect arive ).

 

Nothing fills 2 gb of vram for me including battlefield 3 at 2560x1440 I always have a bit left

 

On paper at least FifteeeCal is correct as are the majority Video card reviewers/editors, from what I've read they always emphasise the need for greater VRAM at 2560x1440+
I have little personal experience to draw from but in real world conditions it would seem greater than 2gb is rarely if ever used as most on the forums will testify to.

My thanks to all that have taken part in this thread.
I leave you with one last question if 2gb of vram was filled what would be the consequence would the frame rate drop would there be stutter or would it simply bottleneck leaving you with less than the graphics card was fully capable of?

 

Don't think it's possible to fill, most I've ever seen on a 2gb card is 1.95 gb and that was on Crysis with some mods running, on my old 3 gb 580 it used 2.7gb for the same game I had less fps then as well.