My GPU seems to be struggling playing games at full settings with my new monitor

[SmoulderingCircuits]

If you just want to play WoW quality games at huge res then buy the best 7970 you can find and leave it as a standalone card - that will keep frametimes and tearing as low as you're going to ever get till the 7xx's and 8xxx's come out.

 

[BKCXb]

If you can wait a few months for the partner boards to be released,4Gig 680s will be available.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

If you can wait a few months for the partner boards to be released,4Gig 680s will be available.

If playing WoW is anything to by, I don't think waiting is an option

 

[Briggsy]

Yep lol

 

[Grummers]

I found the same issue myself, I am running at the same resolution 2560x1440. I got myself an EVGA 3GB GTX580, and I ran MSI afterburner while playing some BF3 on complete MAX settings. It was barely playable, just got it doens't have enough horse power. But I'll show you this screenshot I took, proving that 1.5GB is no where near enough VRAM for modern games at that resolution. Infact the 2GB of the GTX680 might probably struggle too? I must agree with the others that a 7970 probably deal with big resolution better.

Screenshot below.

 

[airdeano]

humm, 580 not enough for single monitor play? toms reviews of a 580 card showed a

performance value (not in wow) but in crysis and metro as they did pretty well.

i saw in another thread, on the motherboard there is a switch for PCI-e 3.0 or 2.0.

if in 3.0, it is collating the information, but it makes refresh slower in 3.0.

http://forum.overclock3d.net/index....-concern-solved/page__pid__498788#entry498788

member changed the bios to 2.0 and refresh is dead-on now. seems there is a lot of

default switching needed.

something to try before spending cash..

airdeano

 

[killablade]

Have to say BF3 is a very GPU-heavy game. My heavily overclocked GTX470 was sometimes struggling to keep up with the game, 1920x1080 with Medium-High settings.

 

[Grummers]

It certainly is a very GPU intensive game, runs GPU between 95-100% all the time. Also I should add, that so far BF3 is the only game which I have had to turn settings down on to play.

.....should I overclock this card, hmm I don't know...maybe...

 

[Briggsy]

humm, 580 not enough for single monitor play? toms reviews of a 580 card showed a

performance value (not in wow) but in crysis and metro as they did pretty well.

i saw in another thread, on the motherboard there is a switch for PCI-e 3.0 or 2.0.

if in 3.0, it is collating the information, but it makes refresh slower in 3.0.

http://forum.overclo...788#entry498788

member changed the bios to 2.0 and refresh is dead-on now. seems there is a lot of

default switching needed.

something to try before spending cash..

airdeano

Thanks....will try this

 

[S_I_N]

dont turn the settings down the issue is gaming at that high of a resolution just turn down the res and you'll be fine. My 570 with 1280mb of vram played BF3 at high settings at 1920 x 1080 with a 45-60 FPS its not so much the game eating that much vram but your resolution needing more to fill it in. My 570 at the above listed specs and fps averaged 1225Mb of memory usage

 

[Briggsy]

I've brought a Sapphire 7970 3gb OC to play at 2560x1440, this should do the trick.

 

[Grummers]

dont turn the settings down the issue is gaming at that high of a resolution just turn down the res and you'll be fine. My 570 with 1280mb of vram played BF3 at high settings at 1920 x 1080 with a 45-60 FPS its not so much the game eating that much vram but your resolution needing more to fill it in. My 570 at the above listed specs and fps averaged 1225Mb of memory usage

It's an option, but personally I'd rather keep the highest res possible (native for the monitor) and choose to lower quality settings. Looks better that way me thinks. feeding 1920x1080 into a 2560x1440 panel makes for a blurry picture.

Depends on the reason for why you're dropping frames though.

Not enough VRAM? 1. turn off MSAA, then lower res.

Not enough horsepower in the GPU to play at your desired res? Lower quality settings.

Always worked for me.

 

[Rastalovich]

Not quite sure why you guys are leading him down the path that the amount of vram is causing his problem.

EDIT: There's been too much jumping-on of the bandwagon over the recent months that vram size is solving everything. Just keep in mind that a 1600x1200 screen @ 32bit uses less than 7.5m - MEG, to display (times about 3 for frame buffering). The textures and playing around, is done with the balance of the memory. The textures load for a 1600x1200 just as they do in a 2560x1440, so changing from a single display to a triple, ""shouldn't"" be a big jump in memory use. Map/sandbox sizes are important.****

(you'll notice those double quotes, cos I want tests done and not just hearsay of people who are on this bandwagon)

****can't vouch for bad programming.