Jacob.xray
New member
will 2GB be able to run triple monitors at 1080p
3GB 0r 2GB for triple display
- Thread starter Jacob.xray
- Start date
KING_OF_SAND
New member
3gb
Jacob.xray
New member
so a 680 wont be enough
please dont say yeas just cause you love nvidia
please dont say yeas just cause you love nvidia
depends on the games you play!
I'm sure games like Mass Effect 3 will run fine on 3 screens, it's not very demanding and only uses half a gig on one screen.
Crysis 2 sits right at 1 gig on 1 screen, with lower details you can get it slightly lower, and you will just slightly over flow the frame buffer. your system specs will become important at that point.
Either your frame rate will have to slow down or your super fast Ram will have to make up for it.
I think one trick Nvidia is using is it's 6GHz memory speeds on 4 memory controllers(fastest we seen yet). Each channel has 512Mb running at 1500MHz. It doesn't show up in gaming on a single scren,but in the benchmarks it does. I'm sure Nvidia puts that extra memory performance to good use when it added 3 screen support.
Remember the memory runs 6 times (effective)to the cores, or each channel runs 1.5 times the core. so it seems to me Nvidia's 2 gig card just might be 3 gig effective! If not they will release 4 gig cards soon.
I'm sure games like Mass Effect 3 will run fine on 3 screens, it's not very demanding and only uses half a gig on one screen.
Crysis 2 sits right at 1 gig on 1 screen, with lower details you can get it slightly lower, and you will just slightly over flow the frame buffer. your system specs will become important at that point.
Either your frame rate will have to slow down or your super fast Ram will have to make up for it.
I think one trick Nvidia is using is it's 6GHz memory speeds on 4 memory controllers(fastest we seen yet). Each channel has 512Mb running at 1500MHz. It doesn't show up in gaming on a single scren,but in the benchmarks it does. I'm sure Nvidia puts that extra memory performance to good use when it added 3 screen support.
Remember the memory runs 6 times (effective)to the cores, or each channel runs 1.5 times the core. so it seems to me Nvidia's 2 gig card just might be 3 gig effective! If not they will release 4 gig cards soon.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
For the next year 2GB will run most games and 3GB all games across triple 1080, but for two years or more you should get a 3GB or 4GB card
Elky72
New member
All 5760x1080 with a MSI R6970 Lightning 2GB
- Skyrim with texture mods highest settings, between 28-50ish FPS depending on environement
- EVE Online Highest settings, single client 5760x1080 / Continues 60FPS(seems to be the highest it goes), running 3 clients each 1920x1080 / 45 FPS minimum
-Batman Arkham City highest settings / 17-31 FPS range (play it lower settings, stays above 26)
- Bunch of older games like Half-Life + episodes / Portal 2 / Sims 3 / anno 1492 / Dragon Age / Grand Theft Auto 4(no mods)..... all run very smooth
I know these aren't the most demanding games. I myself am looking forward to GTA 5. I probably won't be able to run it at highest settings with the current card in 5760x1080.
That's why I said in the post above to consider a card that has some headroom.
- Skyrim with texture mods highest settings, between 28-50ish FPS depending on environement
- EVE Online Highest settings, single client 5760x1080 / Continues 60FPS(seems to be the highest it goes), running 3 clients each 1920x1080 / 45 FPS minimum
-Batman Arkham City highest settings / 17-31 FPS range (play it lower settings, stays above 26)
- Bunch of older games like Half-Life + episodes / Portal 2 / Sims 3 / anno 1492 / Dragon Age / Grand Theft Auto 4(no mods)..... all run very smooth
I know these aren't the most demanding games. I myself am looking forward to GTA 5. I probably won't be able to run it at highest settings with the current card in 5760x1080.
That's why I said in the post above to consider a card that has some headroom.
Stylazation
New member
Going with 3gb or 4gb is way more enough as being future proof
KING_OF_SAND
New member
my friends 6970 maxes out vram with two 1080p displays in BF3. You are going to want at least 3gb 1gb per screen.
Rastalovich
New member
Just had to quote this.
This is the single most serious question anyone should ask themselves when considering graphics cards.
We all tend to lean towards the same-ole genre and versions of certain games, so keep it in mind when buying.
There's no point in buying the latest GTX685++ BAD MOFO OC XXX 16G, if the only bench it drops performance in is the game you play. If the game you play happens to be a ""lesser"" card - so what ?
You play nothing that does PhysX - minus one for nVidia.
You like to Fold - plus one for nVidia.
.. and likewize when thinking of other things.
The fact that the new 8970 does more 3DMark11 points than anything that ever existed, but doesn't like WoW, should be a consideration.
Too many people look at the best average review results and get that card. And ask the question on the forum(s) begging for a similar answer, without stressing what they play. Many cards are tuned for certain games or developers.
Yeah my 7800 GTX ran Unreal Tournament 2004 like no bodies buisness, I was totally happy with it for 7 years! Until one day I picked up Crysis 2 to see what all the fuss was about.
Can you say 1 fps in the opening scene
Went back to the store and picked up a little 560Ti, and it Keeps Crysis 2 above 30fps most of the time with everything almost maxed out. Loaded up UT2004 it hits the 200 fps limiter built into the game.
When I upgrade to another high end card it will be a Nvidia card, AMD has to work on the bug they have with Crysis 2. Imagine if I would of picked up a AMD card and got home only to find out the one game I want to play is the only one that card won't play!!!
Can you say 1 fps in the opening scene
Went back to the store and picked up a little 560Ti, and it Keeps Crysis 2 above 30fps most of the time with everything almost maxed out. Loaded up UT2004 it hits the 200 fps limiter built into the game.
When I upgrade to another high end card it will be a Nvidia card, AMD has to work on the bug they have with Crysis 2. Imagine if I would of picked up a AMD card and got home only to find out the one game I want to play is the only one that card won't play!!!
TheOneHalf
New member
Yeah my 7800 GTX ran Unreal Tournament 2004 like no bodies buisness, I was totally happy with it for 7 years! Until one day I picked up Crysis 2 to see what all the fuss was about.
Can you say 1 fps in the opening scene
Went back to the store and picked up a little 560Ti, and it Keeps Crysis 2 above 30fps most of the time with everything almost maxed out. Loaded up UT2004 it hits the 200 fps limiter built into the game.
When I upgrade to another high end card it will be a Nvidia card, AMD has to work on the bug they have with Crysis 2. Imagine if I would of picked up a AMD card and got home only to find out the one game I want to play is the only one that card won't play!!!
had that happen, tried out cryses 2 with that directx 11 patch nd I got some weird black meshing over everything =.= totally unplayable. Haven't tried it with my 7970 yet.
I like the 7970 and was thinking it was time to give an AMD card a try, but every review I ever read is missing Crysis 2 results , I think in one of Tom's videos he was playing and it just hard locked, and every time he rebooted it locked in the same place. Very WEIRD!!
It must just be the older code of Cysis 2 conflicting with the new cards instuction sets, or the newer cards get confused as to which type of instuction set it is.
I'm sure newer cards were in the labs being designed when everybody was playing Crysis 2, maybe the card guys skipped just that one game.
It must just be the older code of Cysis 2 conflicting with the new cards instuction sets, or the newer cards get confused as to which type of instuction set it is.
I'm sure newer cards were in the labs being designed when everybody was playing Crysis 2, maybe the card guys skipped just that one game.
KING_OF_SAND
New member
well one thing is for sure. When it comes to Nvidia GPU performance to amount of Vram ratio is WAY off.
Similar threads
