GTX 680: powerful enough for a 1440p resolution ( with secondary monitor attached)

[Imnotpaying]

Hi guys,

I´m currently thinking about upgrading from my 1080p BenQ LCD- LED monitor and a GTX 460 to a 1440p monitor( not sure yet which one) and a GTX 680. The 680 will definitely not be one with reference design but rather an OCed one from Gigabyte or Asus( or a different one if there is one that is recommended), as I heard these would be pretty good.

My question now is if a single 680 can handle a 1440p resolution(for gaming) while having my old 1080p monitor attached as well. I would use that one for miscellaneous things, like monitoring temps, skype, spotify etc.

As I´m not "that" experienced to be completely sure it will work out, I would like to hear some of your opinions on that matter.

Thanks already in advance for any helpful advice.

BTW: I´m using a Maximus IV Gene-Z and a I5-2500K

[Helltech]

What games and settings? You're better off with a 7970 Ghz card or a 4GB 670/680 at that resolution.

Like with Metro 2033 and decent settings you're looking at about 20 FPS w/ 680 2GB.

[MattDaemontools]

Like helltech said , the higher memory bandwidth and capacity on the 7970 cards should come in handy for this resolution .

A 2gb 680 should be fine as long as you keep anti aliasing and filtering to a minimum .

[Imnotpaying]

Ok so a 7970 would be more fitting to my setup, but I heard that the AMD drivers had some problems with multiple monitor setups( like a planned on doing). Any experiences with that? I don't necessarily want a 680 but it just seemed like the best option( besides maybe a 690, but thats maybe over the top) and I never had an AMD card before, so I have had no experiences with them so far.

But if the 7970 would be a better bet I will go for that. As there are so many versions of it and the price ranges somewhere between 370-450€ are there any "outstanding" versions that I could focus on?

My last question: How is it possible that in some tests a 680 clearly beats a 7970 and in others a 7970 can (hardly) beat a 680? I don't really understand how that is possible... Thanks already for the help.

P.S. :Games range from : BF3, Crysis3( when it comes out), Far Cry 3, AC3, Skyrim and others that are equally demanding. If I get a graphics card that could be considered "high end" then shouldn't it be able to play games with higher settings than just AA and filtering on minimum?

[The Game]

Actually Amd drivers are great for multi monitor. But 3d in nvidia rocks.

That is

Eyefinity > Nvidia surround

AMD HD3d < Nvidia Lightboost.

Also Amd cards are generally more optimized towards eyefinity because they have more memory.

Get a Ghz Edition. There are 6 GB variants but they generally dont need so much memory for two monitors.

3gb is a standard for all 7970's so that would be more than sufficient.

As far as my experience goes I prefer the Saffire Radeon 7970 Vapour X.

The card overclocks like a beast ,looks great and also runs cool.

The difference is due to the slight variations in both the cards.

The drive optimization for certain type of processing will be in different levels for the two cards, thereby that causes the slight difference.

Also many game engines work with nvidia or amd so that particular game will be affected by the choice of graphics card

[killerx525]

Crysis 3 is optimized for AMD graphics card, so a 7970 would be the perfect card plus it's large memory bandwidth.

[Imnotpaying]

Good to know about that Crysis part and I'm glad that I now know who got the better drivers for which use case. So I did a little research and a 3GB 7970 would apparently be at least on an equal footing with a GTX 680, but I still don't really know why model I should get. The Vapor-X does look really good, but so does the Asus one. Of course I realize that I can get a reference one for about 400€(ca. 550$) but I intend to keep the graphics card for a while, so it would be good if it could play at least current games on medium to high settings. The standard OC is nice and if the new fans and heat dispersion design on these cards work, then I would be more than pleased to not have a 90°(190F) hot and roaring piece of metal in my PC. But as always I'm totally open to any feedback I can get on this topic and as always thanks already in advance and for the help so far.

P.S: About the prices: Here in Germany the prices for all of these cards are considerable higher and sometimes absolutely not comparable ( even the relation between the similar pieces of electronic) so a recommendation on basis of sth. like " A is slighter cheaper than B" is most likely not true in my case. I thought I might just tell you in advance. :-)

Vapor-X : http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-DL-DV...s=vapor-x+7970

Asus Asus Matrix Platinum RoG: http://www.amazon.com/DirectCU-1000M...+7970+platinum

[killerx525]

Go for the Asus because it's fan are one of the quietest GPU fans around and they do fairly good job.

[PipWinsAgain]

Im running a gtx 480 and a 1440p monitor (and a second 1680x1050). Performance in most games on max settings is great. Planetside 2 I play at medium to get 50-80 fps. To answer your question, a GTX 680 would be fantastic.

[Helltech]

The vapor X is a good card. As much as I love ASUS DirectCUII cards (have one myself) it isn't worth 100 dollars more.

[the_devil52]

Sapphire cards with a Dual-X cooler are VERY good. I had a Sapphire 7950 oc and it was very cool quiet. They're also generally fairly cheap compared to other non-reference cards (depending on where you buy it).

[ZeroPlasm]

Get a 7970GHz edition for higher resolutions as it has more VRAM, I'm running 3 1600x900 monitors on it and the drivers for multi-monitor are awesome, AMD Eyefinity is much more mature than Nvidia's competition. I'm running a Sapphire 7970 Dual-X and I suggest you get the Vapor-X if you can, the Dual-X is a good cooler but the Vapor-X is a great cooler. The reason I got the Dual-X is they don't sell it in my county unfortunately.