hd5850 upgrade @ 5040x1050

I'd say you'd get pretty close to gaming on a single card at that res.

My single 670 works absolutely fine with triple screens at 5760x1080 without an overclock.

Maybe not max settings on everything - but he could still get comfortable frame rates I think.

As for the AMD vs nvidia for multiple screens....
I personally have found nvidia far easier to work with. AMD still requires an active display port adapter on their cards which costs an additional 70/80 quid. Nvidia on the other hand just allows screens to be plugged in straight to the card without any additional adapters, so going nvidia saves a fair bit of money there.

It depends on the user though...
I'm personally absolutely fine with dropping settings down to medium or high if I have to. I can't even tell the difference in all honesty. I don't let my framerates drop below 45ish anyway and pretty much every game I can max out settings and play fine. AC3 for example - highest settings all round across triple screens and there's no lag whatsoever.

I say get a single card, as good as you can afford and see how it goes. If you think it's a problem then you can always drop the settings temporarily until you can afford a better card, or a second card for SLI.
Don't listen to people who haven't tried running triple screens on a single card because they can only speculate, and it's incredibly rare you'll find anyone else out there trying to run your specific resolution with your specific card.
Just get a 660/660ti if you can afford it and see how it goes.
 
jamesriley94 said:
I'd say you'd get pretty close to gaming on a single card at that res.

My single 670 works absolutely fine with triple screens at 5760x1080 without an overclock.

Maybe not max settings on everything - but he could still get comfortable frame rates I think.

As for the AMD vs nvidia for multiple screens....
I personally have found nvidia far easier to work with. AMD still requires an active display port adapter on their cards which costs an additional 70/80 quid. Nvidia on the other hand just allows screens to be plugged in straight to the card without any additional adapters, so going nvidia saves a fair bit of money there.

It depends on the user though...
I'm personally absolutely fine with dropping settings down to medium or high if I have to. I can't even tell the difference in all honesty. I don't let my framerates drop below 45ish anyway and pretty much every game I can max out settings and play fine. AC3 for example - highest settings all round across triple screens and there's no lag whatsoever.

I say get a single card, as good as you can afford and see how it goes. If you think it's a problem then you can always drop the settings temporarily until you can afford a better card, or a second card for SLI.
Don't listen to people who haven't tried running triple screens on a single card because they can only speculate, and it's incredibly rare you'll find anyone else out there trying to run your specific resolution with your specific card.
Just get a 660/660ti if you can afford it and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

But a 670 is about > 300 bucks and the difference to a 660 is huge :mad:
 
rossi94 said:
But a 670 is about > 300 bucks and the difference to a 660 is huge :mad:
Click to expand...

I'm running 3x 1080p screens, he's running at quite a lower res. That may make up for the difference in GPU power - but again, nobody can tell unless they've actually tried with his specific config.

My point still stands however - if he bought a single 660, he can still try it out. The screens are gunna run fine in windows, so he can use 3 still, and if he does need to, he can always turn down the settings in games, or even switch to 1 screen if need be until he can afford something more powerful, or SLI.

I feel too many people rely on benchmarks these days, and forget that turning settings down actually makes a big difference.
 
jamesriley94 said:
I'm running 3x 1080p screens, he's running at quite a lower res. That may make up for the difference in GPU power - but again, nobody can tell unless they've actually tried with his specific config.

My point still stands however - if he bought a single 660, he can still try it out. The screens are gunna run fine in windows, so he can use 3 still, and if he does need to, he can always turn down the settings in games, or even switch to 1 screen if need be until he can afford something more powerful, or SLI.

I feel too many people rely on benchmarks these days, and forget that turning settings down actually makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

I'm using a highend overclocked 670 and play on 1920 x 1080 with around ~70 FPS BF3 on max settings, so don't tell me can play with a much worse card on a much higher resulution and still keep the fps up. :mad:
 
rossi94 said:
I'm using a highend overclocked 670 and play on 1920 x 1080 with around ~70 FPS BF3 on max settings, so don't tell me can play with a much worse card on a much higher resulution and still keep the fps up. :mad:
Click to expand...

...and I have a single 670 at 5760x1080. I do know how much triple screens require here...

I'm not saying he'll max out framerates at max settings or anything.

Maybe if you actually read what I've said, you'll see I've said if he drops the settings to high or medium, he should be able to play the game comfortably at high framerates.

My single 670, at 5760x1080 (so a higher resolution than he's running) runs BF3 at medium settings without framerates dropping below 60.

Stop trying to tell me I'm wrong when I run the setup he's wanting to run.
 
It's also kinda about balancing certain settings...
If you can live without AA, then definitely disable it since I'm pretty sure it has a massive impact across 3 screens...
Leave the FXAA all the way up, with shadows on med and rest on high, and you should get decent frames...
I personally hate using setting ''presets'' since they start to prioritize AA too soon...
 
Bought a 3gb 7970 (asus directcu2) guys.
Will I drop below 30fps @5040x1050 on highest settings gta iv. black ops & dirt3 with a 3570k?
 
Dirt3 - no you won't drop below 30FPS.
GTA IV - doubt it...

Black Ops you can't even play triple screen properly without mods.
CoD games aren't coded for it, so in setting it at that resolution it just stretches a single screen across 3 and this happens:
game_12_5760x1080.jpg


It doesn't look as bad like that, but it's really difficult to play properly like that, and is pretty disorientating too.
You can get mods for it - but they will get you VAC banned if you use them online, so you can only play single player like that.
 
jamesriley94 said:
Dirt3 - no you won't drop below 30FPS.
GTA IV - doubt it...

Black Ops you can't even play triple screen properly without mods.
CoD games aren't coded for it, so in setting it at that resolution it just stretches a single screen across 3 and this happens:
game_12_5760x1080.jpg


It doesn't look as bad like that, but it's really difficult to play properly like that, and is pretty disorientating too.
You can get mods for it - but they will get you VAC banned if you use them online, so you can only play single player like that.
Click to expand...

Thats not a problem for me I only really play cod eyefinity on zombies and offline, using widescreen fixer. :)
 
Gta iv is a coding pig. Id expect a drop below 30fps to be honest. Sleeping dogs is a better title to benchmark with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oxynium
Can't decide between 7950 or 660 Ti, and different manufacturers
Replies
18
Views
3K
jamesriley94
J
B
An old noobs 2nd water build / overhaul / upgrade: Case Labs M8
Replies
5
Views
5K
alpenwasser
alpenwasser
Back
Top