3 x 1600p Monitors: Tri 780ti's or Tri R290X's?

[Make]

I'd love to see you run some game benchmarks or heaven with that setup

Average FPS is what I am looking for.

 

[whyscotty]

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.

Trisli has been officially supported since 2007

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1197375200475.html

 

[no_1_dave]

Trisli has been officially supported since 2007

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1197375200475.html

Ok, I used the wrong wording.
It is supported, but Nvidia do not recommend it

Edit- I'll try & find the link when I get home later. It maybe Quad-SLI they don't recommend.

 

[Silent_Scone]

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?

I meant @ 1080P (single screen) specifically, there is a bottleneck with 3 Keplar cards up to 1600P from peoples findings on here. I think it's safe to say at the resolutions you are looking at the bottleneck is removed, even with 4 cards.

 

[goochinbuda]

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.

 

[Make]

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.

Thank you sir, so this "over 4k" res is still playable with 3 titans. Cool

 

[goochinbuda]

Forgot to add that the above was done with a 3930K @ 4.7GHz.
No overclocking on the GPUs.

The Valley Benchmark proved a hell of a challenge though and was very poor at 7680x1600 at max settings. Changing to 5760 x 1080 at ultra detail 8x, gave an average FPS of 37.

How accurate is FRAPs though? I had it overlayed in the top corner of the screen and I was comparing it to the figure Valley was reporting. At times, Fraps seemed to be around 10FPS lower than what Valley was reporting.

 

[klepp0906]

If money is no object you could always just get another Titan and go quad SLI.

I wouldn't. I run 4 titans In one rig and 3 290x in the other. The "other" rig didn't even exist until I had extreme buyers remorse due to the titans. Nvidias software/drivers is just pitiful if your using SLI+Surround in windows 8.1. For example I run at 4680x2560 and get about 25 fps in ffxiv and in wildstar. I've provided nvidia with everything they need data wise and they've reproduced it in the lab, yet over the past 6 months I've been in contact with them and the last half a dozen driver releases - no fixes. To be fair "some" games work (none but free I've found yet though) to be fair again, I don't play much other than a few mmos lol.

Anyways, so far so good on the amd rig. Using a 9590 instead of a 4770k which should actually be a detriment but one way or the other.. It's a much more stable reliable system and I get working eyefinity and SLI together.

Some did make a good point about the titans and that is the frame buffer at high resolutions. Unfortunately titan was an artificially gimped money grab made more and more obvious as they released cards such as the 780ti and now a 6gb version which makes the titan worthless over night.

My 2c - stick with what you have, don't waste $$ on another titan. If you "must" change, go with the radeons hands down for SO many reasons. If your not running 8.1 - don't. It will kill your SLI in surround in many games. If you run in portrait like I do (looks like you don't but worth mentioning) your screwed because turning off surround and gaming on one monitor isn't an option.

Signed - jaded ex-nvidia fanboy

 

[AlamoX]

if i had no issue with money, and no heart to ripoff the coolers i would go for OCuk exclusive sapphire R9 290X 8Go, guess that solves the probleme of the memory and get eyefinity i want ....if i had no issue with money at ALL
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-353-SP&campaign=social/forum/banner

or i could wait for the power color devil13 295x2, with 4x 8pins, it wouldnt be booring to OC, again if i had no issue with money at all.

but since i have issue with money i would say keep the titans, till next gen GPU come out

 

[klepp0906]

Nt