I am going to be buying one of the 27" screens that everyone has been buying and was wondering what my best GPU upgrade would be.  I have right now a single 570 that overclocks well and was thinking of just getting another one to SLI it with.  But then I got thinking that I might not have enough VRAM for the new higher resolution.  I'm thinking that the 570 SLI would have more power, but much less VRAM.  VRAM hasn't been an issue at 1080p, but I'm not sure if 1.25GBs is enough for 1440p.
 
I would love some feedback from people that have this resolution.

I'm quite sure that at 1440p you'll be choked by that Vram on the 570. I know that at 1200p my 1.5gb is getting pushed quite a lot, even tho for most games i have plenty of GPU power, they sometimes choke on some BF3 maps.
 
Just because you don't have 2 cards right now, i recommend you just go to a single 670. Much more clean path for an upgrade in the future plus the bigger vram that you'll get and need. Maybe you can make a push to a 4Gb one if the budget allows it. 

Yep, ive had 2x 570's and when i played maps such as gulf of oman or strike at karkand at 1920x1080 4xAA ULTRA, it hits the VRAM limit at sometimes which causes fps drops to 30fps. so especially at 1440p you'd atleast should go with 2GB.
 
4GB will get more interesting with surround

Go for a GTX 670, and maybe a second in the future if you're willing to try SLI.  At 1440p I'm pretty sure some games will benefit from having 4GB VRAM, namely modded Skyrim in which it is a requirement, probably BF3, and several other modern titles.

I'm always willing to try SLI, had it in the past with no issues and was thinking of SLIing my 570, but it will be a bit before I get the cash for another 670.  Don't know if I can get a 4GB.  Plus I was wanting a 670 FTW, which I didn't see a 4GB version of that for some reason.
 
Looks like I might be selling my 570 then and getting an EVGA GTX670 FTW.

I play at 2560 x 1600, have just purchased a single gtx 670 FTW to replace my 570 1.2gb, i will let you know how i get on.

ManBearPig


I'm always willing to try SLI, had it in the past with no issues and was thinking of SLIing my 570, but it will be a bit before I get the cash for another 670.  Don't know if I can get a 4GB.  Plus I was wanting a 670 FTW, which I didn't see a 4GB version of that for some reason.

Looks like I might be selling my 570 then and getting an EVGA GTX670 FTW.

 
If you can spend more for the 4GB, I recommend doing it.  The cooler is worse than the GTX 670 FTW, but the 670 is such an efficient GPU anyway.

I have a pretty strong 570 SLI here running daily at 822/1951 or max at 900/2000 and I do play in 1920x1200 @ 60HZ screen.
since I love all the eye candy I can see, I usually turn up all quality, AA options and play games in DX11 if possible.
 
Performance of 570 is great in SLI, when overclocked it even beats a single 680 ... but! the main problem is VRAM limit at 1.2GB, I have at least 3 games where I run out of VRAM occasionally and FPS drop dead terribly for 1-2 seconds. it's very annoying in shooters, because it mostly happens in graphically complicated maps and when you get surrounded by enemies ... and start turning around fast ... it kills the fun.
 
If that's the case then I'd really suggest trading the 570 SLI for even a single 670 reference (2GB VRAM) or 670 SLI.
 
you may need 4GB versions for resolutions above 1920x1200 with eye candy at max in some new games, or when using a 120Hz display, especially the 4GB sounds like a must for any 3D or surround setup.

At 1440p with two 670's, I never really see below 60 FPS on BF3 maxed. It typically stays above 60 by a little bit, sometimes hitting close to 100.

Nitemare3219


At 1440p with two 670's, I never really see below 60 FPS on BF3 maxed. It typically stays above 60 by a little bit, sometimes hitting close to 100.

How much VRAM are your cards using while playing BF3 maxed at 1440?

The highest memory usage I have seen to date running 2560x1600 is around 1750MB and that was with Skyrim maxed out with the HD textures and Aero disabled. Most other apps run less than that. I think you are more than fine with 2GB of memory. Kepler is also better at memory management than Fermi. I have had both 580 and 680 cards running side-by-side with the same application and the Kepler had less memory usage.
 
If I was going to do the upgrade, I would go with the 670 FTW for the 680 style PCB. On other the hand, if you plan to go to a surround setup down the road, then perhaps the 4GB card would be a better choice for you.
 
Take a look at this review as well:
 
http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review/1
http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review/26
 
Good luck.

linuxrouter


The highest memory usage I have seen to date running 2560x1600 is around 1750MB and that was with Skyrim maxed out with the HD textures and Aero disabled. Most other apps run less than that. I think you are more than fine with 2GB of memory. Kepler is also better at memory management than Fermi. I have had both 580 and 680 cards running side-by-side with the same application and the Kepler had less memory usage.

 
I've seen BF3 use over 2GB VRAM at 2560 x 1440, though I'm not sure if it was on a Kepler card or not.  I have a GTX 680 and run a 1080p monitor, and Skyrim with 12 graphics mods sometimes uses over 2GB VRAM which is quite astounding (and I have Aero disabled too).  VRAM requirement is definitely situational, though most people play BF3 and I'd certainly recommend all 12 of those graphics mods for Skyrim.

A pair of any 5x0's will always be faster than a single 6x0 (of the same x number), but the gain in Vram won't compensate performance.  Only get it if you intend on a second one at some point.
 
Vram itself is largely a consideration for future-proofing, apart from present-day multi-display setups, future games will push the Vram usage even at your same resolutions, it is not like there is a maximum for a resolution to the point where you choose one versus the other where it is obvious, I'm starting to think that is BS.
 

ManBearPig

VRAM hasn't been an issue at 1080p, but I'm not sure if 1.25GBs is enough for 1440p.

You're getting stuck on the wrong concept, per se, Vram usage has more to do with which game and detail level you choose, rather than resolution alone. 
 
For example, when Dell debuted the their 2560x1600 30" display back in winter of 2005, those high-end gamer cards (GeForce 7800GTX and Radeon X1800) didn't have more than 512MB per GPU.   We're they struggling?  Only in the sense that the games of the day at high-details tended to reach about 40FPS with a single-GPU, but a second card would fix that, meaning those games of the day weren't pushing more than 512MB even at 2560x1600 to be a problem.  Fast-forward to today and depending on our preferences, some people are good with 2GB while others need more at the same resolution.  That is why I'm saying this is about your games, next year there will be a title that pushes average Vram above 2GB even at 1080p, it will happen.
 
We can also say our hardware adjusts to our games, that if you have more Vram, the game will use more; that doesn't mean it was supposed to as a requirement.  Not until I got a GTX260 did the first Crysis at 1080p use 802 out of 896MB, but it was fine in the 512MB of a 9800GT and the performance difference happened to match the ratio of CUDA cores, about 65% better at the same settings.  So where did the extra 300MB of Vram usage come from?  The game adjusted to my hardware, simple as that.  Many games that first appeared in 2007, the hardware wasn't available to push the VRam I eventually saw with my GTX260, like HL2:Ep2 saw 610MB at 1080p max detail which was higher than most 8-series and 9-series cards at the time (except for G80 based cards).  Crysis first appeated in Oct 2007 while 768MB per GPU was max in 8800GTX cards.  But I saw it use 802MB in my GTX260 years later.
 
It is not a descrepency, it is adjustment.  Likewise for any resolution, your game will adjust to more Vram or less, it is not like you're being held back, per se.  That said, like I said up top, get more Vram for the sole purpose of future games provided you intend to get new games later.  That might sound strange, but people upgrade their hardware based on the idea that time stops right here (i.e. not using more now = always be the case, so no need to get more), so unless they also plan to stop getting games, they can't use that ideology.  People use that logic mostly with PCIe lane specifications, that beacuse they won't need it now, they don't plan ahead.

As someone powering a Dell U2711 with a GTX 570, I say jump ship and go to something with more VRAM. 2GB is enough right now, in my opinion, but I feel a little bit burned by my 1280MB on 2560x1440 experience, so I'm replacing it with a 4GB GTX 680 Classified (should be delivered tomorrow). Also, I also have plans to power more than one 2560x1440 screen, so the 4GB makes even more sense for me. Looking to the future of what you plan to do as well as what kind of games may come is, I think, a good idea.
 
;)

I understand Vram differs between games and detail level.  I only play games on the highest settings (except AA sometimes).  The game that I play most right now is BF3 and was wondering what vram usage people were seeing playing that with max settings at 1440p.  Right now at 1080p with BF3 maxed except for deferred AA I'm usually using around 1.2GBs of my vram.
 
I know that some games will use more vram if it is available, and don't see much improvement over cards with less vram.  But sometimes if you don't have enough vram, it will hinder your fps quite a lot.  I was more wondering if I would hit a vram limit with a 570 running new/future games with max detail in 1440p (mainly BF3).  And I don't plan on getting surround, just this one monitor so I don't think I need the 4GB version.

If you are like me and don't set graphic settings which your EYES CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE, than the 2gb FTW is perfect for BF3.  I set all games I play on in-game max settings except AA past 4X.  You can't tell any difference past 2X on my res 2560X1600. (and for most people AA is not even needed at my res)
 
The EVGA 2gb FTW 670 models are the best bang for the buck even with high res LCD's.  Just go SLI if your res is past 1920X1200
 
The EVGA 4gb 670 Signature models are louder & hotter and for enthusiasts who are mostly concerned with BM's with SINGLE LCD SETUPS and not REALITY. 
 
For those with 2D/3D Surround, the more GPU power & VRAM, the better though.

As I am pretty sure the monitor you're talking about is the same as mine...I said get the 670. I had two 570's over clocked and I hit the vram limit in a few games. Skyrim especially. I still have hit the vram limit in Skyrim with 2gb. I have a good deal of texture mods and I use 2x AA with 2x transparency super sampling at 2560x1440. Game runs fine though...no stuttering regardless of being near or right at the vram limit. Fps is anywhere from 40-120 depending on the area. Anyway...get a 670 and over clock it. Get a second down the line or upgrade.

I am running the same screen @1440 on a pair of GTX 560ti Hawks and every thing plays just fine. Most bench marks I have seen I am getting about the same numbers as a single GTX670 even though I have half the vram.
I plan to up grade soon as they are done cashing in on the GK104 mid range GPUs, the 670/680 are nice but not flag ship worthy IMO.
Once the GTX780 comes out the 670/680 will get re branded 760/760ti and be a great option in the $250/$300 price point where they should be!