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.
I agree that the 6GB titans are probably best due to the vram
However, Nvidia has stated many times that 2 card SLI is 100% supported. Tri-SLi and Quad-SLI do work & in theory should be ok, however it is not 100% supported or recommended by Nvidia so is very likely to be buggy.
Could you explain more on the bottleneck here? I have an ASIC/FPGA background but my knowledge of PC architecture wouldnt be so great. I would have thought that with more GPUs in the system you can effectively process the frames more quickly so the CPU might not be able to feed the GPUs quickly enough therefore causing an underrun.
But Kaapstad stated earlier that quad sli is unlikely to bottleneck my CPU at 7680x1600. How is this so? Is it that this extreme res would keep the CPU busy enough and unlikely to cause a data underrun to the GPU's, even in quad sli?
ok so some quick tests I did earlier this evening.
Tomb Raider Benchmark:
Resolution: 7680x1600
Hair setting: normal
Shadow details: normal
AA: FXAA
Everything else at their max setting.
Min FPS: 62
Max FPS: 85
Avg FPS: 78
Crysis 3:
Resolution: 7680x1600
Level: Red Star Rising
Texture Detail: Very High
Game Effects from the Advanced Graphics menu: High
Filtering: 1x
AA: FXAA
GPU memory usage: ~3GB according to MSI AB.
Difficult to get the average but according to Fraps, the FPS was around the low 50's, occasionally dipping down to around 40 and below during heavy fighting scenes.
I hadn't played Crysis 3 in a good while but it certainly felt a lot smoother than BF4 over the weekend.
If money is no object you could always just get another Titan and go quad SLI.