Originally Posted by Syntax21
Defiantly the 7970s. The 4gb 680s are kinda a sham unfortunately, and its a shame because I really like NVIDIA so I would love to recommend them but I cant say they are worth the extra money at all. If you do do 680's, don't even bother buying the 4gb version.
Originally Posted by Rayleyne
anything above 90 is good, But i prefer 120
I still say the 7970s, Remember the 680 4GB can't use all 4Gb because it's bandwidth limited, It was pointed out numerous times, However the 7970 has no problem spreading the bandwidth lovin' around with it's rediculous memory bandwidth it can well and truly make full use of all 3 gigglbytes of Vram
As for everyone else here, Seriously there is nothing wrong with crossfire and eyefinity, AMD drivers are fine, Stop spreading the misinformation not only are these cheaper but they are faster and better suited to the job, The titan while it may be better then the 7970 is twice the price and upwards, the 680 while a fine card is not suited to surround resolutions due to the aforementioned problem and we aren't talking 5760x1080, We are talking big boy's 7K* 1440.
Like it or lump it, This is something the 7970 was designed for.
I really don't know where so many of you guys are getting the idea that the 4GB Kepler cards are 'bad' simply because of the ratio of bus width to memory capacity being relatively lower. I've never seen a reputable reviewer EVER say something like "well, the extra memory on this card is a gimmick because the bus width is only X-bits wide so there's not enough bandwidth to utilize this much memory". I've read 100's (if not 1000's) of GPU reviews over the years, and never seen anyone say that.
What I always see is reviewers saying that "the power of the GPU itself is not enough to be able to utilize (some extra amount of vram)".
I'll give you the most recent example, the [H] review of the 2GB vs 4GB GTX670 in SLI:
" That header explains the situation we experienced most. There were some advantages of being able to enable higher MSAA settings at 5760x1200, especially in the case of Hitman. However, while we were technically able to enable these settings, or complete a run-through, the performance wasn't fast enough out of the GeForce GTX 670 GPUs to actually allow that high of a setting to be playable. It's like putting beefy off-road tires on a Yugo, sure the capacity is there to go off-road, but the Yugo lacks the performance to get us over the terrain.
To really show off the advantage of 4GB of RAM on GeForce GTX 670 based video cards, would be to use no less than a three-card 3-way SLI setup. At that point, the performance may be there with GTX 670's to actually utilize the high settings 4GB of RAM would allow.
Another way to show off the advantage of more VRAM, is to simply put it on faster GPUs. In this case, we'd like to see what 4GB of RAM can do with 2-way or 3-way GeForce GTX 680. The GeForce GTX 680 would be more able to give us the performance we need, to show the benefit of 4GB of RAM.
As it stands, the GTX 670 is just a bit underpowered, even in 2-way SLI, to show the benefit of the higher VRAM capacity."
It's very clear by what they're saying here that the issue at hand is the actual GPU performance, not some bad ratio of bandwidth to memory capacity. They also did find one game in their tests (Hitman) wherein there was a distinct advantage to the 4GB cards vs. the 2GB cards in terms of increasing the max playable settings. So it's really not logical to conclude that the bandwidth/capacity ratio is 'the problem', otherwise there'd be NO games where the 4GB cards perform better than their 2GB counterparts.
This all being said, if someone asked me, I'd be inclined to recommend the AMD solutions for such a high resolution, and the reason for that is simply the bandwidth. There is no question that, as you go up in resolution, bandwidth becomes more important (i.e. more likely to be the limiting factor) to your performance, and AMD clearly wins in this regard.
So, assuming that one 'gets lucky' and doesn't have microstutter issues (or any of the other problems) that a few people claim on this thread to have 1st hand experience with, on paper, the AMD solutions should perform better at such an extreme resolution.
However, if it was ME, I'd probably still get the Tri-SLI 4GB 680's, because I'm another person who's been 'unlucky' with AMD multi-GPU solutions in the past, and overall I think that nV provides the more trouble-free double and triple GPU experience (quad-gpu tends to scale really bad so I don't really recommend it for either brand, personally ... no offense, K
... but again, that's just me. And I'm not saying my experience is the only possible one
Also, at SUCH a high a resolution as the one we're discussing here, I have to wonder whether 3GB might start to become a limiting factor in some games, and thus if one might actually be better off grabbing the 4GB cards ... something else to make one go Edited by brettjv - 4/8/13 at 10:56am