Widescreen Gaming Forum

I'm going to upgrade my GPU, I've currently got 2x460 768MB SLI OC'd. But a little while after buying those I figured I'd buy a Surround setup, so I bought 3x23" monitors. Obviously I am lacking VRAM, and the performance of the 2 460s in 5760x1080 is pretty damn poor.

These are my current specs:

MB: Z68A-GD65 (G3)
CPU: Intel Core i5-2550K @ 4.4 GHz
RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 2x4GB CL8
PSU: Corsair 1000W 80 plus gold (Don't remember exactly which model)

My MB only supports PCI-E 3.0 16x0 or 8x8 for SLI, so I'm wondering if there will be loss of performance going for 2x670/2x680 instead of a single 690 at those resolutions.

I'm also worried the VRAM of the 690 is too low. Will there be a 690 6 GB or 8 GB version? With surround resolutions I'm thinking 2x670/2x680 4 GB versions would be better, but I fear the 8x8 mode will take away the advantage and I don't want to buy a new MB too.

And finally overclocking, can I clock the 690 to the same speed as the 680? Does the 670 clock good?

Considering I'm going to spend around 1200 Euro on graphics cards I don't want to mess up. Price is not really an issue, but if 2x670 8x8 performs pretty much as good as a 690 for a lower price I don't see the point in going for a 690, especially considering the extra 2 GB of VRAM. Or if it's worth going for the 680 4 GB instead of the 670 4 GB. Or should I wait for a 6/8GB 690? I'll admit, I'm kind of a nVidia fanboy, maybe there are better options over at ATI that I have not considered?

I've been trying to do some research, but I find so few reviews for 5760x1080 resolutions which is where VRAM really starts to matter. It seems odd to me that the most powerful nVidia graphics card, the 690, only has 2GB of VRAM. Is that enough to run games like BF3 maxed without stuttering at 60+ FPS? Keep in mind I do not plan on using Anti-aliasing or VSync, so maybe I don't need the extra 2 GB of VRAM? However, it is vital that I get 60+ FPS. But I also want to future proof a little here, so extra VRAM is always nice.

I don't know, I'm confused! So many options, so many variables! Please help me! :D

Edit: Oh I also have the option of buying a 690 and using one of my old 460s as a dedicated PhysX card, is that maybe also a good alternative?

I'm going to upgrade my GPU, I've currently got 2x460 768MB SLI OC'd. But a little while after buying those I figured I'd buy a Surround setup, so I bought 3x23" monitors. Obviously I am lacking VRAM, and the performance of the 2 460s in 5760x1080 is pretty damn poor.

These are my current specs:

MB: Z68A-GD65 (G3)
CPU: Intel Core i5-2550K @ 4.4 GHz
RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 2x4GB CL8
PSU: Corsair 1000W 80 plus gold (Don't remember exactly which model)

My MB only supports PCI-E 3.0 16x0 or 8x8 for SLI, so I'm wondering if there will be loss of performance going for 2x670/2x680 instead of a single 690 at those resolutions.

I'm also worried the VRAM of the 690 is too low. Will there be a 690 6 GB or 8 GB version? With surround resolutions I'm thinking 2x670/2x680 4 GB versions would be better, but I fear the 8x8 mode will take away the advantage and I don't want to buy a new MB too.

And finally overclocking, can I clock the 690 to the same speed as the 680? Does the 670 clock good?

Considering I'm going to spend around 1200 Euro on graphics cards I don't want to mess up. Price is not really an issue, but if 2x670 8x8 performs pretty much as good as a 690 for a lower price I don't see the point in going for a 690, especially considering the extra 2 GB of VRAM. Or if it's worth going for the 680 4 GB instead of the 670 4 GB. Or should I wait for a 6/8GB 690? I'll admit, I'm kind of a nVidia fanboy, maybe there are better options over at ATI that I have not considered?

I've been trying to do some research, but I find so few reviews for 5760x1080 resolutions which is where VRAM really starts to matter. It seems odd to me that the most powerful nVidia graphics card, the 690, only has 2GB of VRAM. Is that enough to run games like BF3 maxed without stuttering at 60+ FPS? Keep in mind I do not plan on using Anti-aliasing or VSync, so maybe I don't need the extra 2 GB of VRAM? However, it is vital that I get 60+ FPS. But I also want to future proof a little here, so extra VRAM is always nice.

I don't know, I'm confused! So many options, so many variables! Please help me! :D

Edit: Oh I also have the option of buying a 690 and using one of my old 460s as a dedicated PhysX card, is that maybe also a good alternative?

hey guy...

your mobo it is ok. you mount a 690 or sli of 670 or 680

if you no have problem of money take 2 680 sli ;) no problem
8x8 pci not is a problem ;)
sli run good end not different with pci 16@16

or take 2 670 is good vga. i have 2 gtx 480 end run good ;)

gtx690 i no like.... duble gpu you wait new relase of driver for play in new game...;)

hi,good luck

Unless I was running say 3x30" screens, I would probably get GTX670 4GB cards personally.

You can put the money you save from not going 680's towards a 256GB SSD. IMO, that will help gaming more than the 670>680 upgrade (smoother windows and slightly faster game loading, no stuttering in games with large texture caching (WoW etc))

I went with 2xEVGA GTX 670 4GB Superclocked and put the money I saved into a 3TB HDD. I already have 2 SSDs so I don't need that, but I am lacking in storage space. I also bought a new office chair, and those are fucking expensive! Cost more than the new cards did, but whatever, it's an investment which I don't have to upgrade every other year. Thanks for the tips guys!

I went with 2xEVGA GTX 670 4GB Superclocked and put the money I saved into a 3TB HDD. I already have 2 SSDs so I don't need that, but I am lacking in storage space. I also bought a new office chair, and those are fucking expensive! Cost more than the new cards did, but whatever, it's an investment which I don't have to upgrade every other year. Thanks for the tips guys!

Are you experiencing any microstuttering? You can disable and later reanable SLI and run a light game (so one gpu can run the game at 60 fps) to see if you feel any difference in smoothness.

PCI 3.0 is already twice as fast as 2.0. I would have been surprised if you would have seen any performance difference more than 1% between 16x/16x and 8x/8x.

They're being shipped to me now, they'll probably be here in 1-3 days. So I don't know about the micro stuttering now, is that a problem that can occur with lack of bandwidth? Last time I had micro stuttering was because my power supply was insufficient. Micro stuttering is a real pain in the ass though.

Sadly I won't be able to run PCIe 3.0 after all. I did some more research and found out that only Ivy Bridge CPUs have support for PCIe 3.0 (I've got Sandy Bridge), I was unaware it was affected by the CPU, I thought it was only about the motherboard. So apparently my LGA1155 motherboard supports Ivy Bridge after a BIOS update. I also found out that CPUs only have support for PCIe x16 across all slots. So 16x for single card , 8x8 in SLI, 8x4x4 in Tri-SLI and 4x4x4x4 in Quad-SLI. And to get 16x16 and other SLI configurations the MB need some kind of extra chip.

Regardless, I read a few tests about GTX 690 on PCIe 2.0 vs PCIe 3.0, and the difference was insignificant. And considering the 690 is pretty much double as fast and uses double the bandwidth, I reckon a 670 in PCIe 2.0 x8 would do just fine. The only time it really mattered was at higher AA settings. And for me that's not a problem as I find with a resolution of 5760x1080 there really is no need for loads of AA.

If it becomes a problem though I'll upgrade my CPU next month, but I hope I don't have to do that as I just recently upgraded it from an old Q9450, was hoping I could skip a generation or two.

So I don't know about the micro stuttering now, is that a problem that can occur with lack of bandwidth?

No, that won't be the case. Microstuttering can occur when using more than one gpu, especially in eyefinity or surround setups, but maybe you won't notice it. It will be there though.

And for me that's not a problem as I find with a resolution of 5760x1080 there really is no need for loads of AA

Well if there is need for AA at 1920x1080 that there might as well be need for AA at 5760x1080, unless you plan to be further away from your screens. It can be pretty demanding on your gpu though.

If it becomes a problem though I'll upgrade my CPU next month, but I hope I don't have to do that as I just recently upgraded it from an old Q9450, was hoping I could skip a generation or two.

I really doubt that there would be a need for upgrading to an Ivy Bridge cpu.

No, that won't be the case. Microstuttering can occur when using more than one gpu, especially in eyefinity or surround setups, but maybe you won't notice it. It will be there though.

Ah yes, as I said, I've had problems with it earlier, but since I bought my new power supply the issue went away, at least visually for me. I've read reviews with 2-way vs 3-way SLI that even though 3-way gave better FPS, the microstuttering completely destroyed the fluidity of the picture, so in the end they went with 2-way.

Well if there is need for AA at 1920x1080 that there might as well be need for AA at 5760x1080, unless you plan to be further away from your screens. It can be pretty demanding on your gpu though.

I'm sitting relatively close to the screen, when stretching my arms I can just touch the monitor, less than a meter. I can see the pixels, so AA helps, but I am not that nazi on it. If I can run it with AA @ 60+ FPS, I'll do it, but it's not an issue if I can't. For me as a twitch FPS gamer, high FPS is more important than visuals, but obviously when buying new cards I want good visuals too.

No sure if this is important but I'd almost spend another $40 on doubling your ram.

Just a thought.

Why would he need to do that? It is hard to fill 4gb of ram with modern games, let alone 8gb.

Got my new cards, yay! Only one problem, they're running in PCIe 2.0 x8/x1. What gives?! My old 460 SLI ran in PCIe 2.0 x8/x8 just fine. Why is the computer acting up? Anyone got ideas?

Edit: Fixed it, apparently EVGA thinks it's a good idea to put the serial number sticker partially on top of the PCIe connectors.

How are the cards working out for you?

They're working great! Running games on Ultra settings in 5760x1080, that's something else from what I'm used to with my 460s which had problems running 5760x1080 on low settings. Not sure I really needed those 4GB VRAM though, as when the memory usage is above 2GB my FPS is starting to drop below 60. I've seen it as high as 2,4GB though, so it's nice to have that extra VRAM just to be safe. But I'll probably never get close to the 4GB limit because I am so picky with FPS. Or maybe I will, just not in shooters, I am not that picky about FPS in RPG games and such because I don't need that fast and precise twitch aim.

I noticed that even though I can run some games with 60+ FPS, certain settings still gives me input lag, so I still don't like to play at max settings. Not sure if it's the game coding or something in my computer, but in BF3 for example I could not use Ambient Occlusion and still have a fluent experience even though I had 70 FPS it did not feel smooth. In Blacklight Retribution I could not use Depth of Field, again, had way above 60 FPS.

Have not really tested a lot of games, ran a few Heaven Benchmarks until I got the PCIe speed problem resolved, then I jumped right over to BF3 gaming, moving on to BLR (which BTW has horrible SLI scaling, think it's even negate scaling), and then BRINK which was awesome, miss that game so bad, wish it didn't die. Today I'm thinking about trying some Metro 2033, Skyrim and Max Payne 3. Heard the latter one was a VRAM sink.

Some game engines are build to use as much vram (to a surten limit) as is availible. So if you see the usage go over 2gb it doesn't mean that you would have performance issues if you would have gone for 2gb cards. As for BF3 are you using v-sync, since in my experience it helps smoothness a lot in that game? Still wandering if you are running into micro stuttering. Let us know if you do.

No I don't use VSync, ever. It's one of those settings I avoid like the plaque, it adds input lag which is the problem I am having if I turn on Ambient Occlusion in BF3, turning VSync on as well would just make it even worse. When I say it doesn't feel smooth, I am not talking about the image, I am talking about the lag between moving my mouse until I see my character turn in game, we're talking milliseconds here, but for a twitch gamer those milliseconds are crucial, and when there is a delay there, it feels sluggish.

Here's a video explaining it. He's talking about PS3, but the same applies for PC, obviously his demonstration is a lot more severe than what I am experience, most people would probably not even notice it, but I am extremely sensitive to anything input related :).

After some more testing today I have come to the conclusion that I am running into a bandwidth wall. At least that's my only explanation. I have noticed that even though I can run games at 60+ FPS in 5760x1080, most of them add a little input lag at that resolution. I tried to reduce Pre-Rendered Frames down to 1 in the driver, but it didn't really help. In Crysis 2 it did not matter if I was running on low or high settings, same amount of input lag. But if I tried 1920x1080 or 3840x720 at ultra the lag disappeared. Playing the story solo, this would not be a problem because the lag is not that bad, but multiplayer online my performance would likely suffer enough to make me annoyed and turn it down. I am unsure if this is related to nVidias Surround driver or my bandwidth, but I'm gonna go with my bandwidth being only PCIe 2.0 8/8.

As for microstuttering, I have not had issues with this in anything but Aliens vs Predator 2010 yet. But in that game I noticed microstuttering, however the upside to this was that there was no noticeable input lag added going from 1920x1080 to 5760x1080, so that's good. Turning off the DX11 Advanced Shadows seemed to mostly remove the microstuttering, and I can't say I noticed the visual difference. Also the microstuttering rarely happened. BRINK did also not add any input lag at max resolution, but that is not a very demanding game either.

Not entirely sure what to do, I'm thinking about upgrading to Ivy Bridge for double the bandwidth with PCIe 3.0, but I'm not sure that'll really help. Might just have to get used to it (It's really not that bad), or simply stick to 1080p in shooters I play online and using 2D Surround for every other game. The biggest reason for my upgrade was GW2, and I am so most definitely using 2D Surround there. As for shooters, maybe I'll buy myself one of those fancy 120Hz monitors and put it in the middle, if 2D Surround allows that, you guys know?

Maybe this post can shed some light on your issue. Can you try to disable SLI and play bf3 on 5760x1080 at low (so you have 60+ fps) and see if you experience the same lag?

Sadly the only way to play at that resolution with one card is to remove the other one, or play in windowed mode (Which would be to demanding for 60 FPS, I think). I tried connecting all the monitors to one card, but it would not let me play in 2D Surround unless I plugged one monitor in the other card. And I don't really want to take out the other card to test this.

The problem seems to not affect all games, tried Serious Sam 3 and Dead Island today, and had no issues with input lag in those games at max resolution.

I thought I'd try that SLI lag issue at 1080p by capping FPS at 60 and trying it with and without SLI (Should theoretically produce the same result as with 5760x1080), but I'm not sure how to do that in BF3 or Crysis 2 without using VSync. I tried to set power target at 60 FPS through EVGA Precision X, but I was still at 150 FPS. Tried it in Tribes Ascend (Because the game has an option to cap FPS without VSync), but it caps FPS to 92 instead of 60, at which point it felt smooth with and without SLI. I might try .ini tweaking it tomorrow so it caps at 60, but it seems this issue is related to some game engines, so I don't think I'll notice a difference, but I'll try it.