with my 1920x1200 monitor (Dell U2410), so I want another monitor.  I want a 2560x1600 monitor and there's 2 that I've looked at so far; Dell U3011 and HPZR30w - are their others worthy?  Now what's confusing to me is that I've read where some say the Dell has more input lag than the HP, but both have a 7ms response time according to their specs - what gives?.  The monitor will have a dual purpose; photo editing and gaming.  Also will the 680 sli have any issues running a 2560x1600 monitor?  Games I play Crysis2, Crysis, BF3, Batman AC and there's a couple more.  Help me make a decision.
Thanks...Al

they are both pretty good and most opt for the dell and there is also the nec.  You might have to turn down the aa in a game or two but should have no problem with 680 sli.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002579
 

If you're happy with your U2410, it makes sense to go for the U3011.  Guru3D uses an i7 965 @ 3.75 GHz, and here are their GTX 680 SLI results at 2560 x 1600 for the games you listed.
 
http://www.guru3d.com/art...-gtx-680-sli-review/15
 
Techpowerup also reviewed GTX 680 SLI, using an i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz.   See their results starting here.
 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/5.html
 
Looks like your GTX 680s will still be bored.  

Hey thanks for the feedback and links.  Btw, I do plan to keep the 24" monitor.
 
Al

I thought 60fps is the golden rule and target.  Why will they still be bored?
 
Thanks...Al
 

boredgunner


If you're happy with your U2410, it makes sense to go for the U3011.  Guru3D uses an i7 965 @ 3.75 GHz, and here are their GTX 680 SLI results at 2560 x 1600 for the games you listed.

http://www.guru3d.com/art...-gtx-680-sli-review/15

Techpowerup also reviewed GTX 680 SLI, using an i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz.   See their results starting here.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/5.html

Looks like your GTX 680s will still be bored.  

Methodical2


I thought 60fps is the golden rule and target.  Why will they still be bored?

 
In their results, they got over 60 FPS in BF3 on Ultra, over 60 FPS in Crysis 2 on ultra with high res textures/DX11 update, and over 60 FPS in Batman AC.  The only one that averaged under 60 FPS at 2560 x 1600 is Crysis (of all the games you mentioned).

Why don't you pick up two more U24's and go Surround?

loveha


Why don't you pick up two more U24's and go Surround?

 
This would also cost less than getting a U3011.  Sounds like a great option.

boredgunner

loveha


Why don't you pick up two more U24's and go Surround?

This would also cost less than getting a U3011.  Sounds like a great option.

 
I agree, that sounds like fun.   Your 680's won't be bored with a surround setup:)

I can tell you for sure 2x GTX680's are a little bit bored at 2560x1440 here.
 
- Battlefield 3 Multiplayer @ Ultra + MSAAx4 + HBAO -> Never below 60fps, average ~90fps with some dips to ~70-75fps on heavy explosions, smoke, or destruction all combined.
 
- Crysis 2 @ Ultra DX11 + HD Textures -> Never Below 60fps
 
- GTA IV @ Very High (single GTX680 as no SLI or CFX support) -> Lowest Ive seen was like 54fps. Anything above 40fps is quite smooth in this game.
 
- The Witcher 2 @ Ultra (No Ubersampling) -> Hardly see it below 100fps
 
- Skyrim with lots of mods including 2k Textures and all at Ultra -> Never below 100fps.
 
Overall the cards perform like damn beasts at 2560x1440 and 2560x1600, to be honest I think that's what GTX680 SLI is really made for, I love them.
 
I would go for a Dell U3011 over 3 monitores any day, mainly because I hate having bezels between monitors and because I prefer the big resolution on a single monitor. Although it's personal taste and you should choose whatever you prefer of course, only thing I can say is Dell U2711 was the best purchase I have ever done for my computer, coming from a 1080p monitor. 
 
Only game that will really make these cards cry a bit is Crysis 1 and Metro 2033 at full settings, and even then they're playable at really smooth frame rate. At Metro 2033 if you disable MSAAx4 you can get really decent performance and play above 60fps most of the times.
 
Overall, the cards are way too powerful, and you are definitely wasting their power at 1080p/1200p, grab a 1440p/1600p monitor, you will love it! 

Hey thanks for all the replies.  I am not interested in surround mode right now.  I know that may sound a bit crazy, but I want one single monitor with high resolution for now, so I purchased the Dell U3011.  I use my pc mainly for my photography and I'd like to have the best of both world.  
 
Again thanks.
 
Al

Methodical2


Hey thanks for all the replies.  I am not interested in surround mode right now.  I know that may sound a bit crazy, but I want one single monitor with high resolution for now, so I purchased the Dell U3011.  I use my pc mainly for my photography and I'd like to have the best of both world.  

Again thanks.

Al

 
You will not be sorry, the U2711 and U3011 are great monitors, I love my U2711 and I would never change it for smaller surround monitors. 
 
Not to mention you do photography, you're going to love the monitor. 

Thanks.  That's good to here.

Question:  Looking at those reviews, I noticed they only have AA at 4x; it doesn't talk about the other settings available in the games, which varies by game so I guess they were keeping things consistent as possible.  So say for instance for BF3 I max all the other settings, which I typically do now, such as texture, MSAA 16x etc, etc. those settings at max would pull down the FPS right and therefore be a bit more taxing on the cards.
 

boredgunner

Methodical2


I thought 60fps is the golden rule and target.  Why will they still be bored?

In their results, they got over 60 FPS in BF3 on Ultra, over 60 FPS in Crysis 2 on ultra with high res textures/DX11 update, and over 60 FPS in Batman AC.  The only one that averaged under 60 FPS at 2560 x 1600 is Crysis (of all the games you mentioned).

I've been down this path before.
 
I love my Dell U3011, but it's expensive. And triple-monitor gaming is fun, been there too, but I'm sick and tired of developers not taking into account unusual aspect ratios (eg: some UI elements get stretched, loading screens get stretched, etc., etc.).
 
If I were in your place, I'd wait for Dell to update their 2560x1600 resolution 30 inchers with LED back-lighting. I love my U3011, but it gets pretty warm and isn't quite as bright as my U2312HM (23" 1920x1080) which is also an IPS monitor, but uses LEDs for back-lighting. If you're paying $1.2k+ for your monitor, best to spend it on the next revamp of the U3011.

Methodical2


Question:  Looking at those reviews, I noticed they only have AA at 4x; it doesn't talk about the other settings available in the games, which varies by game so I guess they were keeping things consistent as possible.  So say for instance for BF3 I max all the other settings, which I typically do now, such as texture, MSAA 16x etc, etc. those settings at max would pull down the FPS right and therefore be a bit more taxing on the cards.

 
Yeah I don't think they use full AA in most of the games.  But you might want to try using FXAA anyway.  It can look better than MSAA due to the slight blur filter it provides, and performs much better than MSAA.  A potential win-win situation is worth a shot.  

They don't use much AA because even MSAAx2 is overkill for 2560x1440 and 2560x1600.
 

 
And I don't agree with you boredgunner, bluring out textures is not nice AT ALL, it makes all game blurry and that's annoying. In fact in Battlefield 3 that's a disadvantage, using MSAAx2 is much better than using FXAA High, sure performance hit with MSAA is a lot more, but having these cards performance is not what you should be worried about. 

I already ordered and will be picking it up tonight.  Has there been talk about a new 30" from Dell?  I do know that my 24" gives off no heat and is cool to the touch.  I am in an open room and in the basement and in the summer it's actually freezing down here when the AC's running, so it should be fine.
 
Al
 

cipher_nemo


I've been down this path before.

I love my Dell U3011, but it's expensive. And triple-monitor gaming is fun, been there too, but I'm sick and tired of developers not taking into account unusual aspect ratios (eg: some UI elements get stretched, loading screens get stretched, etc., etc.).

If I were in your place, I'd wait for Dell to update their 2560x1600 resolution 30 inchers with LED back-lighting. I love my U3011, but it gets pretty warm and isn't quite as bright as my U2312HM (23" 1920x1080) which is also an IPS monitor, but uses LEDs for back-lighting. If you're paying $1.2k+ for your monitor, best to spend it on the next revamp of the U3011.

kcuestag


They don't use much AA because even MSAAx2 is overkill for 2560x1440 and 2560x1600.



And I don't agree with you boredgunner, bluring out textures is not nice AT ALL, it makes all game blurry and that's annoying. In fact in Battlefield 3 that's a disadvantage, using MSAAx2 is much better than using FXAA High, sure performance hit with MSAA is a lot more, but having these cards performance is not what you should be worried about. 

 
FXAA doesn't blur textures, it blurs edges.  It's not excessive unless you use a custom FXAA injector and crank up the blur effect.  But he should try both to see which he prefers. 

After trying if you have enough GPU horse power you should definitely use MSAA.
 
Sure the performance hit is big but the quality is better, and with a GTX680 SLI even at 2560x1600 he can afford at least MSAAx2 without going below 60fps at all in Battlefield 3. 
 
Heck I play at 2560x1440 and I use the Ultra Preset which includes all Ultra, MSAAx4 and HBAO, and I never see it below 60fps on heavy destruction, explosions, or smoke, and that's with both cards at stock. Only thing I turned off was Motion Blur as I find it useless, a disadvantage too. 

i personally own the HP ZR30w and love it 2560x1600P gaming is the way to go.... screw multi monitor...