670's quad sli VS 680's sli VS 690

[johndud]

which would have better performance? which is cheaper? and more easily powers 3 displays at max?

 

[HEXiT]

they will al perfom about the same on a 32 lane pci-e motherboard.
the perfomance is marginal at best between the 670 and 680 so in sli they will both swap blows with a 690. you have a 670 already just get another and you will be happy with the results in most games. if you have a 120hz monitor.
with all the cards no matter what there config the ram is only usable on a per gpu basis. so if your cards have 2x2gig then you have 2x2 gig not 4gig. the same goes for the 690 except you have 4 gig shared by 2 gpus resulting in half the memory in real terms as each can only use half the total amount. if both are active.
on multi screen setups you want a minimum of 768MB per screen any less and you will se performance hit over and above what you would normally see on a game. but even with the best cards out you wont be able to max out say bf3 across 3 screens.

 

[johndud]

they will al perfom about the same on a 32 lane pci-e motherboard.
the perfomance is marginal at best between the 670 and 680 so in sli they will both swap blows with a 690. you have a 670 already just get another and you will be happy with the results in most games. if you have a 120hz monitor.
with all the cards no matter what there config the ram is only usable on a per gpu basis. so if your cards have 2x2gig then you have 2x2 gig not 4gig. the same goes for the 690 except you have 4 gig shared by 2 gpus resulting in half the memory in real terms as each can only use half the total amount. if both are active.
on multi screen setups you want a minimum of 768MB per screen any less and you will se performance hit over and above what you would normally see on a game. but even with the best cards out you wont be able to max out say bf3 across 3 screens.

actually ive heard that BF3 isnt that hard to max out, i play it on ultra with my 670 no prob (usually 50-55fps), i think crysis 2 with the new HD package is the harder one to run, even on 3 monitors,

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

There's a rather long explanation why this is (which i won't get into) but here's the best option (from those 3) in order:
1 - 680 GTX SLI
2 - 690 GTX
3 - 670 GTX Quad SLI

I don't recommend quad sli (given the very few occassions that the drivers will be in lined with the game code. Tri/Quad sli (or higher) is better if you're doing crazy computation (using CUDA) and won't benefit you all that much in gaming.

So the battle is really between the 680 GTX SLI and 690 GTX (which has 2 GPUs). You can check benchmarks to see who wins (I would say 680 GTX would win given the bigger hardware involved as far as performance goes). Then get prices for those cards (check for deals if any).

From there determine the Performance per dollar ratio (FPS or score / Price). Whichever is higher is your winner.

The only reason why you would go TRI SLI (no quad) is if you ran 3D VISION on all 3 monitors (only then I'd say TRI might be a considerable option)...then again, I'm sure you can find benchmarks on those also.

Hope this helps.

 

[johndud]

Best answer selected by johndud.

 

[johndud]

they will al perfom about the same on a 32 lane pci-e motherboard.
the perfomance is marginal at best between the 670 and 680 so in sli they will both swap blows with a 690. you have a 670 already just get another and you will be happy with the results in most games. if you have a 120hz monitor.
with all the cards no matter what there config the ram is only usable on a per gpu basis. so if your cards have 2x2gig then you have 2x2 gig not 4gig. the same goes for the 690 except you have 4 gig shared by 2 gpus resulting in half the memory in real terms as each can only use half the total amount. if both are active.
on multi screen setups you want a minimum of 768MB per screen any less and you will se performance hit over and above what you would normally see on a game. but even with the best cards out you wont be able to max out say bf3 across 3 screens.

How pricey would a 120 hz 27 inch monitor be?

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

How pricey would a 120 hz 27 inch monitor be?

Depends on a few things...LCD screens are usually cheaper (but not as good for the environment). LED screens are much better (IMO) but run a little more expensive...

So, say you're looking at LED screens...now it depends on which country you're from (or looking for).

North America, Europe, Australia:
- You'll find deals at FutureShop, BestBuy and other similar electronics store.

Though, if you're picky about your display (which I assume you are if you're dropping that much money on a VC, then you can choose to be a little more patient and check out computer stores (as oppose to electronics stores). I'm in Canada and I'm a big fan of NewEgg, NCIX, and Computer Canada (in respective order). If you can, go to the store instead of having them delivered (to reduce the banging and bouncing of truck deliveries...).

A display that big probably means you'll hang on to it for as long as you can (i assume). So you might want to consider whether or not you'll want to play in 3D or not...and/or if you'll want to play using multiple motinors.

3D: Pick 3D Vision (Nvidia) or the equivalent with AMD and get the list of certified (or approuved by Nvidia or AMD) to play in 3D. Don't forget that you'll need to also buy additional hardware (i.e. Nvidia's 3D Vision Kit = ~150$US/CND).

Multiple Monitors: I personally don't like the idea but it's the latest craze so... if you do want to consider those, make sure you buy those who have compatible racks to align them together...and if not, at least pick monitors with the smallest border possible.