The difference between having a dedicated PhysX card and doing it all on a single card
Single stock Titan @1080p, no dedicated PhysX card
![]()
Single stock Titan @1080p, plus a dedicated PhysX card
![]()
Nice, what is your dedicated card?
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
The difference between having a dedicated PhysX card and doing it all on a single card
Single stock Titan @1080p, no dedicated PhysX card
![]()
Single stock Titan @1080p, plus a dedicated PhysX card
![]()
Nice, what is your dedicated card?

.From what I can see this game does not support more than 2 way SLI
If you have more than 1 card and want to use PhysX, dedicate a card entirely to PhysX as using autoselect in the SLI setup seems to wreck fps.
If NVidia are serious about 4K they really need to work on multi GPU support. Two Titans plus a third for PhysX at 1600p will manage just over 100fps, this translates as about 55 fps @4K which is really not enough.
It doesn't scale like that.... As the 290X has proven, 4k is all about raw filtrate and even 3x Titans are not that much better then 2x 290X's in that regard.


Small overclock on my cards to match the EVGA Classified boost 1044 give me a extra 10 fps
Min = 55
Max = 127
AVG = 86
From what I have seen it does scale like that.
What you have got to remember is AMD are fond of turning the settings down to get their 4gb cards to run.
Heavy modded skyrim on a 290X @4k, not a chance even using 4 of them.
The Titans will run it though.![]()
No....Just No..... Running maxed out at 4k the 290X still beats the Nvidia cards, and beats them by some margin too.
Not in the benches I have seen.
Go on find me a bench where a 290X is running Skyrim with lots of mods @4k. I think they needed a Titan to measure the VRAM usage @5.5gb lol. I don't care what AMD say, the 290X is not a 4K card unless you want to reduce the settings.
Ultra HD 4K Summary
Amazingly, when the resolution is cranked up to Ultra HD resolutions like 3840x2160, the new Radeon R9 290X outperforms the GeForce GTX TITAN. We saw as much as a 23% performance jump over the much more expensive GeForce GTX TITAN. In all of the previous pages the R9 290X was in-between the GTX 780 and GTX TITAN, closer to TITAN, but at Ultra HD 4K it just owns the GeForce GTX TITAN.
Titan is not a 4k card unless you want single digit frames....
To think Titan is a better 4k card then the 290X is quite frankly, silly... EVERY review that tests 4k shows that the 290X hammers both the 780 and Titan at 4k.
I think my 4 Titans will do a bit better than single digit frames lol. At 4K you do not use single cards, you should be looking to use 3 or 4 cards if you want to turn the settings right up to max. Having said that you can not do this if your cards do not have enough VRAM, 4gb is not enough.
I think you also need to be more balanced in your views, defending AMD come what may only weakens your point of view.
There are reviews out there where the Titan comes out on top @4K, go and find them.
And if you speak to 8 pack he'll tell you Titan scales like ass after 3 cards where as the AMD don't......
So 4x 290X will be better due to superior fill rate and GPU scaling...
Unless you know better then 8 pack?