Single Monitor @ Higher Resolution GPU Question

[alisoncat]

Hey guys,

Recently I settled on a Dell u2913wm as my gaming monitor. Yeah, it's that weird one that is 2560x1080 (21:9) ratio. I actually love it, because it's perfect for my room. I tried a 30 inch 2560x1600 IP monitor, and it was too big vertically (given the small space/distance I have). And my desk isn't big enough for multiple monitors. So this is the perfect compromise, and I'm getting the widescreen gaming I've always wanted.

Now I wanted to upgrade my GPU. Right now I have a GTX-680 2gb, and when playing higher end games, I noticed in MSi afterburner, that my GPU is reaching 95% in memory use. Performance overall is pretty solid, but the jump from regular 1920x1080 is noticeable in my memory use. So my question is this:

For a single monitor at 2560x1080, would I be better off getting something like a 6gb HD-7970, or a 4gb GTX-680? I only bring up the 6gb model, since it's close to the same price as a single 4gb GTX-680. And besides those two models, would it be better to just crossfire a 3gb 7970, or SLI a 4gb GTX680? Keep in mind, I'm only going to be gaming on a single monitor. And I know SLi is more beneficial for multiple monitors.

Going to be honest, it's just really tempting to get a single card given my set up (the price) + and that 6gb model looks tempting over the 4gb 680. But wanted some feedback first before going through with an order.

 

[wanderer11]

You are using 95% of memory? In what game? I have a 7870 on a 2560x1440 monitor and haven't seen the memory use close to that yet. Before you go about spending money, what fps are you getting when it says 95% usage?

 

[EzioAs]

Do you have anti-aliasing on? If you do, either disable it or drop to 2xAA or something similar because your video memory usage is too high for that resolution. And may I ask in what game did you see the 95% memory usage?

 

[alisoncat]

I was seeing this kind of memory usage in Arkham City. I've read the game isn't optimized the best though. I have all my drivers up to date. I'll try dropping the AA down a bit, and see if it works out better.

I should probably test my memory usage on all my other games, and report back. It might just be this one.

Although, the other game that was getting pretty high was Sleeping Dogs. But that had a high res texture pack + the AA is kind of wonky. I just figured my Graphics card was getting tapped on memory. But maybe it's another culprit.

 

[alisoncat]

I checked my GPU usage on Sleeping Dogs, and it's also being pushed at 92-95. That's with AA turned down to the lowest setting and everything maxed out.

Unlike Batman though, Sleeping Dogs runs pretty smooth. I tried a lower graphic setting game like SWTOR (the MMORPG) and was only getting 40-50% usage on that. So it's not every game. Just seems to be these two. Going to try Battlefield 3 max next.

Either way, seems like some of these games are pushing my graphics memory to the limit. =/

EDIT: Maybe my CPU is a bottleneck? Would that have an effect on GPU usage though? I'm using a 3.0 ghz i5 2320 with 8gb of ram. Was considering upgrading to an i7 3770k and 16gb or Ram. I know that's overkill (was going to do it anyways) - but was going to focus on upgrading my GPU first, considering I thought that was what was hindering my performance being maxed out.

 

[EzioAs]

Are you talking about GPU usage or memory usage here?

 

[alisoncat]

Are you talking about GPU usage or memory usage here?

In MSi Afterburner it says: GPU USAGE 95% (and it hovers over 90% when playing Sleeping Dogs, & Arkham City and any heavy intensive game). Should I be looking at Memory Usage? If so, my apologies. I've been looking at the wrong thing!

 

[alisoncat]

Alright for memory usage, it shows my MAX being at 1149 MB (that's total since I've had it on all day). Right now for Sleeping Dogs, it's staying at around a steady 800mb and the FPS is 70-80 FPS with everything max, and the high res pack.

So it looks like my memory on my GPU side is fine. So, I'm guessing on certain games where it doesn't work that well, it's just the games and how they are optimized. I still wonder if my CPU causes any slow down. I'm kind of a noob though, so maybe I'm just worrying about stuff I shouldn't be.

 

[ikaz]

Well we can't say unless your post your PC Spec's like your CPU. memory etc. Also have you tried to OC the card or is it a model that come factory OC'ed ?

 

[Derza10]

Its normal to have GPU usage at 99%... the only reason it won't be at 99% is if your CPU is bottlenecking you OR you have vsync on limiting your FPS. If you don't have Vsync on and are seeing GPU usage under 99% then it is your CPU holding you back... But if you are getting at least 60 fps it isn't really an issue.

 

[EzioAs]

ikaz is right.

In MSi Afterburner it says: GPU USAGE 95% (and it hovers over 90% when playing Sleeping Dogs, & Arkham City and any heavy intensive game). Should I be looking at Memory Usage? If so, my apologies. I've been looking at the wrong thing!

And this finally answers what I thought was weird that you posted earlier saying 95% memory usage. What you were actually trying to say was GPU usage.

To answer your original concern, you don't need more than 2GB VRAM for 2560x1080 or 2560x1600. 2GB is still enough. You should know that getting a higher res will put more strain into your card and even the top ones (7970/680) will struggle to perform adequately at max settings. In some new games like FC3, 680 and 7970 will both struggle at max setting even at 1080p (1920x1080), so if your 680 is not performing very good at 2560x1080, that's totally understandable. Getting a 4-6GB card won't help you get better performance. This is one of those time when you have to go SLI/crossfire, overclock and/or lower some of the image quality to get better framerates. Hope that clears things up.

 

[alisoncat]

Wow, thanks for the advice guys. You guys really cleared things up for me.

Since I have you guys here, I'm going to list my specs real quick, just to see if there is any weak link in my setup.

Motherboard: Gigabyte: GA-Z68A-D3H-B3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128502

Processor: Intel i5 2320

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-2320-Quad-Core-Processor-Cache/dp/B005L9C49K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357945153&sr=8-1&keywords=intel+i5+2320

8 GB of ram

GPU: GTX 680 2gb OC edition

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125422

PSU: 1000 Watt Corsair

Basically, I'm just wondering if upgrading any of these parts, will gain any performance improvements. Or should I just be happy with what I have (at the current resolution and with what games are out right now).

I'm sort of interested in trying SLi by buying a second 2gb GTX680, now that I know that GPU memory isn't an issue at this resolution. Although I'm not sure if the improvement in performance is really worth it.

 

[EzioAs]

You can read reviews to see how 680 in SLI scales in the games you played. It seems like the rest of your rig can handle it. Too bad a new 680 is around $100 more than a 670. If you had a 670 in your rig right now, getting another card will be cheaper and save you an overall of around $200.

However, my recommendation would be to hold out buying anything now. You have the 680 already, you should probably wait for GTX700 series coming out Q1-Q2. In the meantime, it's probably best if you lower some of the details a little bit. If you really can't wait, SLI is the only answer.

 

[babernet_1]

You can read reviews to see how 680 in SLI scales in the games you played. It seems like the rest of your rig can handle it. Too bad a new 680 is around $100 more than a 670. If you had a 670 in your rig right now, getting another card will be cheaper and save you an overall of around $200.

However, my recommendation would be to hold out buying anything now. You have the 680 already, you should probably wait for GTX700 series coming out Q1-Q2. In the meantime, it's probably best if you lower some of the details a little bit. If you really can't wait, SLI is the only answer.

I think what EzioAs means is that when the Nvidia 780 comes out, the Nvidia 680's will probably drop by a $100 or so. Then would be a good time to go SLI. However, is it worth it to you to save this money and go without video heaven for another three to four months? Only you can decide.

 

[EzioAs]

I think what EzioAs means is that when the Nvidia 780 comes out, the Nvidia 680's will probably drop by a $100 or so. Then would be a good time to go SLI. However, is it worth it to you to save this money and go without video heaven for another three to four months? Only you can decide.

That's one. My original point was that the 680 is the highest end card already and the only upgrade path is to go SLI if OP wants more performance.

 

[alisoncat]

Okay guys, thanks a lot. I'll just have to decide if it's worth doing a GTX 680 SLI 2gb. I kind of wish I had just gotten the 4gb model, that way buying a 2nd one now wouldn't cost so much. But alas, I have a 2gb. So I'll have to see what the 2gb SLi performance bump is.

But I'll probably just hold off for now. Thanks again.

 

[alisoncat]

Best answer selected by alisoncat.