Surround 4K gaming rig?

[FAIL_bro777]

Theoretically, what would you need to run a triple 4K display?

 

Just a little thought experiment I thought up, I'm no expert, but I don't think technology is quite good enough to support this, but at the rate we're going with improving tech, surely this will soon be possible and eventually common among gamers. 

 

Maybe Linus could do an episode or something on this if it IS possible, like a megaoverkill buildlog...... 

 

 

 

[ZetZet]

No. You just can't.

[Fate]

Not possible if you plan on playing newer AAA titles remotely close to maxed out.

Even four 980's probably won't be nearly powerful enough. 

Possibly four 390x's could do it, but nobody knows as they're not even out yet.

[cesrai]

Your would need AMD firepro.

[EmeraldKiwi]

To run a surround 4k setup, you would probably need 2x 980, some really nice CPU, and a bunch of ram for the lols.

EDIT:

Yeah or you could just run a workstation card like a firepro or quadro.

[TBNRunity]

To run a surround 4k setup, you would probably need 2x 980, some really nice CPU, and a bunch of ram for the lols.

EDIT:

Yeah or you could just run a workstation card like a firepro or quadro.

I think you would need 4 980's with 6+gb vram

[Briggsy]

surround gaming in itself is not common among gamers, and likely never will be. VR will take over that space long before the average gamer starts adopting triple/quintuple display surround.

[SimpleG]

I think you would need 4 980's with 6+gb vram

That would run worse. 2 "8 gb vram" 980 should be good

[FAIL_bro777]

surround gaming in itself is not common among gamers, and likely never will be. VR will take over that space long before the average gamer starts adopting triple/quintuple display surround.

 

Hence why its theoretical. like Schroedinger cat, you probably wouldn't test it, just just a thing to think about.

 

 

I think you would need 4 980's with 6+gb vram

 

4 980's, 8GB RAM, Intel I7, a couple SSDs in RAID 0, and a bloody awesome PSU and MOBO to support the lot? let alone a liquid cooling loop to keep it chill

[EmeraldKiwi]

I think you would need 4 980's with 6+gb vram

If you had quad 980s it would microstutter like a mofo. The fewer GPUs, the better. Two way sli is the most stable if you're going to use multiple GPUs.

[dan8cat]

My potato can run seven 4k screens in SLI

[FAIL_bro777]

If you had quad 980s it would microstutter like a mofo. The fewer GPUs, the better. Two way sli is the most stable if you're going to use multiple GPUs.

So 2x 980s (dedicated phyx gpu? also a 980 so similar performance and clock speed?) 

[EmeraldKiwi]

2x 980s might work decently, but the 4gb of vram may be a limitation. If there is an 8gb or 6gb model, then I would get two of those instead. More vram is highly beneficial for higher resolutions.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

Even with Quad 980s, not a chance

 

maybe on lowest/medium settings

[FAIL_bro777]

Even with Quad 980s, not a chance

 

maybe on lowest/medium settings

 

really? a single 980 can run a single 4k display already though I thought?

[Briggsy]

Hence why its theoretical. like Schroedinger cat, you probably wouldn't test it, just just a thing to think about.

 

In that case with the hardware we have available, you would currently need an X99 platform with preferably an i7 5960x, PCI-E SSD, 3 Titans (because of 6GB VRam) or 3 980's for the improved color compression, or a couple 295X-2 because Eyefinity doesn't require a gpu per monitor. AMD would be the better choice in this scenario because of how eyefinity works compared to Nvidia surround.

 

the total pixels per frame are immense, but pixels every second are mind boggling.

 - 24,883,200 pixels per frame (24 Megapixels),

 - 720 Megapixels per second at 30FPS or 1.4 Gigapixels per second at 60FPS

 

luckily all modern graphic cards employ forms of color compression, so 8 bits per pixel is a huge overshot, but if graphic cards weren't using any compression (because the thread is a thought experiment so why not), that would be 1.4 Terabytes of theoretical data being rendered per second at 60FPS.

 

To do 5 monitor eyefinity... not happening with 4k without slideshows.

[ShadowCaptain]

really? a single 980 can run a single 4k display already though I thought?

 

not at Ultra 60fps,

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_980_gaming_oc_review,17.html

 

[EmeraldKiwi]

really? a single 980 can run a single 4k display already though I thought?

A single 980 can run decent with a single 4k display, but when you add another, and another on top of that, the workload exponentially increases, therefore making the framerates inconsistent. I mean, you still could do it, but surround gaming is kind of out of reach in terms of 4k and playability.

EDIT:

Yep the graph pictured up there shows a single 980 performance at 4k ultra. Turning off antialiasing would be really helpful, but still wouldn't yield much higher frame rates.

[FAIL_bro777]

In that case with the hardware we have available, you would currently need an X99 platform with preferably an i7 5960x, PCI-E SSD, 3 Titans (because of 6GB VRam) or 3 980's for the improved color compression, or a couple 295X-2 because Eyefinity doesn't require a gpu per monitor. AMD would be the better choice in this scenario because of how eyefinity works compared to Nvidia surround.

 

the total pixels per frame are immense, but pixels every second are mind boggling.

 - 24,883,200 pixels per frame (24 Megapixels),

 - 720 Megapixels per second at 30FPS or 1.4 Gigapixels per second at 60FPS

 

luckily all modern graphic cards employ forms of color compression, so 8 bits per pixel is a huge overshot, but if graphic cards weren't using any compression (because the thread is a thought experiment so why not), that would be 1.4 Terabytes of theoretical data being rendered per second at 60FPS.

 

To do 5 monitor eyefinity... not happening with 4k without slideshows.

 

damn thats a list. Liking the maths too  

 

so really, it is possible, just ludicrously expensive, a damn overkill, and extremely impractical for anyone who would want it (due to the massive span of the displays taking up like half a room, let alone a stand that can support them) 

[officiallyasimulator]

i would probably say 2 R9295X2's a 5960X 32gb of ram because why not. and the biggest/fastest ssd you can get your hands on.

 

or would 4 individual 8gb 290Xs do a better job?

[Briggsy]

damn thats a list. Liking the maths too

 

so really, it is possible, just ludicrously expensive, a damn overkill, and extremely impractical for anyone who would want it (due to the massive span of the displays taking up like half a room, let alone a stand that can support them) 

 

http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2013/07/25/pushing-the-12k-pc-gaming-boundary-at-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second/

 

and thats with a 7970 lol  :lol:

[FAIL_bro777]

Its been done! lol wow, the graphics don't look to bad either.