2 Asus Gtx 770 DirectCU II running 3 monitors?

[Gung Pow Chicken]

So my question to all of you is will my 2 GTX 770's run 3 monitors and play games at a decent frame rate? The monitors I have already purchased are 3 Asus VG248QE, they seemed awesome and had great reviews. As for the stand I have a XFX FXTRISTAND that will support these monitors nicely. 

[Jobbe03]

I imagine you're running in surround? Yes, your performance should be good. (Surround or not.) 

[Sonefiler]

jesus christ no

 

if you're expecting surround 1080p 120fps with that im telling you now its not possible.

 

1080p surround is 3/4 of 4k

120fps is 2x 60fps of 4k

thats 1.5x 4k you're trying to run with 2GB GTX770s in SLI

You need four Titan Blacks for that

And thats at LOW

[CoolBeans]

It should be fine, just won't be able to play maxed out. Are they the 4GB 770s?

[Cubit481]

may be this helps...

 

[Sonefiler]

may be this helps...

 

<snip>

Im sorry I call bullshit on this benchmark

Plus 30fps is still shit, and he has 144Hz monitors

[Enderman]

jesus christ no

 

if you're expecting surround 1080p 120fps with that im telling you now its not possible.

 

1080p surround is 3/4 of 4k

120fps is 2x 60fps of 4k

thats 1.5x 4k you're trying to run with 2GB GTX770s in SLI

You need four Titan Blacks for that

And thats at LOW

Look at what @Cubit481 posted

Basically you will need to play at 60fps, not 120

[Enderman]

Im sorry I call bullshit on this benchmark

Plus 30fps is still shit, and he has 144Hz monitors

Its 60fps not 30. 60 is fine for most people, but it is a waste of 144hz monitors.

[Cubit481]

Im sorry I call bullshit on this benchmark

Plus 30fps is still shit, and he has 144Hz monitors

u cant say that without knowing what system they used to benchmark...until u have something that will actually help...

[Sonefiler]

Its 60fps not 30. 60 is fine for most people, but it is a waste of 144hz monitors.

Those benchmarks may be accurate somehow, but the minimum FPS is still going to be obnoxiously low because of VRAM bottlenecks. 3GB can barely run tri-1080p

[Gung Pow Chicken]

jesus christ no

 

if you're expecting surround 1080p 120fps with that im telling you now its not possible.

 

1080p surround is 3/4 of 4k

120fps is 2x 60fps of 4k

thats 1.5x 4k you're trying to run with 2GB GTX770s in SLI

You need four Titan Blacks for that

And thats at LOW

I'm looking 60-100 FPS

[Sonefiler]

I'm looking 60-100 FPS

jesus christ you need like 3-4 titan blacks or two R9 295X2s

[Cubit481]

Those benchmarks may be accurate somehow, but the minimum FPS is still going to be obnoxiously low because of VRAM bottlenecks. 3GB can barely run tri-1080p

thats not true...

 

[jmaster299]

thats not true...

 

You not helping by posting a picture with out a link to the source. No way to know how valid the source is. With that in mind, Guru3D did some 5760x1080 benchmarks. Two 3GB 780's provide playable frame rates in the games test, but not the 60-100fps that the OP is looking for. Also need to keep in mind that the benchmarks are not for the most demanding of games as they are all fairly old at this point.

I don't follow hardware.info, so I can't speak to their reputation, but they did a 5760x1080 benchmark for Crysis 3. A more current and more demanding game, and quad SLI still couldn't crack 60fps. But at that resolution they should really be turning off AA.

Long story short OP, those two 770's are not even close to enough for that resolution. If you want to run those cards, and maintain 60-100fps, you need to looking at something like 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. 

[Cubit481]

You not helping by posting a picture with out a link to the source. No way to know how valid the source is. With that in mind, Guru3D did some 5760x1080 benchmarks. Two 3GB 780's provide playable frame rates in the games test, but not the 60-100fps that the OP is looking for. Also need to keep in mind that the benchmarks are not for the most demanding of games as they are all fairly old at this point.

I don't follow hardware.info, so I can't speak to their reputation, but they did a 5760x1080 benchmark for Crysis 3. A more current and more demanding game, and quad SLI still couldn't crack 60fps. But at that resolution they should really be turning off AA.

ya they provide playable fps but actually benchmarks u posted also doesnt helps the point i m trying to make....

[jmaster299]

ya they provide playable fps but actually benchmarks u posted also doesnt helps the point i m trying to make....

Wasn't posting to affirm or dispute your claim, but to provide valid benchmarks with valid sources that show the OP will not be able to play at the resolution he wants. I only quoted your post so you would start providing sources.

As to your point about 3GB of VRAM being enough, just take the time to look up some 4K benchmarks as there is a good supply of those. 5760x1080 is only 6.2 million pixels. 4K is nearly 8.3 million. Yes the OP is talking about exceeding the 60fps that 4K monitors are limited to, but we get purely into hypotheticals at that point due to a lack of benchmarks. Here is a link to some 4K benchmarks from Guru3D. Two of the 3 benchmarks are within margin of error between two 780 Ti's and two 290x's. The difference in BF4 is significant, but they pulled a bonehead move in all the benchmarks and failed to disable AA.

But we can get a clearly picture from eTeknix. They don't point out that AA is disabled, but in their test the 780 Ti's in SLI actually jump ahead of the two 290X's, which indicates AA is off. The 780 Ti's also come out on top in other games like Metro Last Light. So 3GB is sufficient for those higher resolutions, so long as AA is disabled, but AA should be disabled as it's no longer needed at that point. 

[Cubit481]

Wasn't posting to affirm or dispute your claim, but to provide valid benchmarks with valid sources that show the OP will not be able to play at the resolution he wants. I only quoted your post so you would start providing soruces.

ya i get it...he wouldnt get that much fps though...also i think with surround setup he should have gone with atleast a 290x or else he would be just getting 20-30 fps in the games coming in the future...

[Lord Pantaloons]

If you're willing to lower the eye candy to achieve your desired framerate then two 770's will be fine. If you're expecting to max out new games then you need to spend more.

[Lays]

Those benchmarks may be accurate somehow, but the minimum FPS is still going to be obnoxiously low because of VRAM bottlenecks. 3GB can barely run tri-1080p

 

 

I ran 780 SLI at 5760x1080 @144hz for 7 months perfectly fine and got mostly 80-120 in everything I played besides crysis 3, if you turn AA off, it makes a world of difference at that res.

 

The res does add up to 3/4 of 4k mathematically, but I'd say it's closer to 1/2 of 4k realistically, because a lot of games don't fully support it, or support it a strange way so that the side monitors are less detailed than the one in the middle. (Thus resulting a lighter load on the GPU's) A lot of games render the image yes, but the 2 side monitors don't get everything rendered at once, until you actually look in that direction with the middle screen.

Games like bf3/ bf4 are included in this, the middle screen has a lot of details etc, but then the side monitors don't get all of the little details on the dirt, grass, flowers, etc.

[Gung Pow Chicken]

It should be fine, just won't be able to play maxed out. Are they the 4GB 770s?

I believe so

[Gung Pow Chicken]

If you're willing to lower the eye candy to achieve your desired framerate then two 770's will be fine. If you're expecting to max out new games then you need to spend more.

I like to play games more than I care about the quality.

[Lord Pantaloons]

I like to play games more than I care about the quality.

Then two 770's will be plenty, having the 4GB models will leave you better off than you normally would be.