660ti good for 3 monitor setup?

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by JeyNyce, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. JeyNyce

    JeyNyce Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,950
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotec GTX 1060 6GB
    Thanks for all the info guys. I'm thinking of just getting a GTX680 (got some OT from work). I will still have a 3 monitor setup, but gaming will only be done on one with settings maxed out.
     
  2. yasamoka

    yasamoka Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,849
    Likes Received:
    243
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080Ti SC
    Ummm no. You just quoted this part without quoting the following statement:

    I'm not saying that you'd be getting less than 60FPS with an Nvidia card. That's obviously retarded. Read what I said before that:

    Obviously, I'm implying with with certain AMD or Nvidia configurations, one could achieve 1080p 60FPS.

    What I actually meant is, given a scenario with a specific game, specific resolution, and specific graphical settings, with a specific graphic card(s), if you're getting LESS than 60FPS, regardless of whether it's on AMD cards or Nvidia cards, then go for Nvidia cards as they have less microstutter currently.

    If the scenario you are looking at achieves 60FPS on both AMD and Nvidia cards, then you'd have to enable VSync on the AMD cards so as to avoid microstutter.

    If the scenario you are looking at achieves LESS than 60FPS on Nvidia cards and 60FPS on AMD cards, then it's up to you. Smoother, VSynced gameplay with a bit higher input lag (with FPS cap@60, lag is reduced greatly) vs less smooth gameplay due to <60FPS ONLY and not due to any spikes in frametimes or anything. You'd be considering other scenarios as well in this case.

    Why would I ever imply that Nvidia cards cannot get 60FPS? I didn't even specify a game. It's not like Nvidia have been unable to support higher than 24Hz refresh rate dude ;)

    In that case, 3x7950s minimum. Do note that you get higher performance on AMD multi-card setups but worse microstutter (without Vsync, of course).[/QUOTE]Again, higher performance might be 70FPS vs. 80FPS, for example. It might be higher, it might be lower.
     
  3. Mr Terry Turnip

    Mr Terry Turnip Master Guru

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI 1060 Gaming X
    yasamoka I think he just misunderstood what you said, I think you speak allot of sense.


    So much of it depends no the quality of the coding/engine, some games look excellent and run INCREDIBLY well, pumping out tons of FPS on quality hardware, while others, look (arguably) a TINY bit better, but run like broke dick turnips.

    I for one would far FAR rather have the game that looks excellent and runs superb rather than one with a couple of extra 'MODERN' effects in in which totally RUIN performance for the TINIEST improvement (which is all too common these days - Borderlands 2)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
  4. IamApropos

    IamApropos New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 670 2GB
    with the memory bandwidth it really puts those cards at a limitation for anything more than a single 1080p monitor with low AA settings and its only compounded when you SLI those cards. and a really expensive GTX 680 is not much better 5-10 fps MAX vs a really good GTX 670 which is why most people consider 680s a waste of money since they don't provide a significantly noticeable difference in performance especially comparing overclock vs overclock.
     

  5. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    You will be surprised that alot of games you can play on all three screens with the one 680 just not really demanding games.
     

Share This Page