Much Titan

[PC_NOOB ;)]

Can two water cooled titan x run 3 4k monitors  or just 3x 24" 1080p? (FPS pls)

[Raudi_]

Can two water cooled titan x run 3 4k monitors  or just 3x 24" 1080p? (FPS pls)

Depends on the settings for the 3 4k monitors the 3x24" 1080p the 2 Titan X's will be overkill.

[PC_NOOB ;)]

Depends on the settings for the 3 4k monitors the 3x24" 1080p the 2 Titan X's will be overkill.

I LOVE overkill  and the three 4k monitors are

Acer Predator 4k2k XB280HK 28" G-Sync

[Pugs501]

I bet if you hook up 3 1080p Monitors per TitanX you could do that

 

[Monitor] [Monitor] [Monitor] (TitanX)

[Monitor] [Monitor] [Monitor] (TitanX)

[Raudi_]

 

I LOVE overkill  and the three 4k monitors are

Acer Predator 4k2k XB280HK 28" G-Sync

 

"Overkill" 

You have an Asus Hero VII thats not really overkill. Plus if you loved overkill you be getting 3/4 980's.

[othertomperson]

Can two water cooled titan x run 3 4k monitors  or just 3x 24" 1080p? (FPS pls)

 

One Titan X would give you a decent experience on a single 4K monitor. One would give you an excellent experience with 3 1080p monitors. Two would be ott.

 

It would be interesting to try 4K surround with two Titan Xs, I've never seen anyone do it though. Linus for instance seems to maintain 4K being "not quite there yet" in spite of a year's worth of evidence to the contrary now.

[PC_NOOB ;)]

"Overkill" 

You have an Asus Hero VII thats not really overkill. Plus if you loved overkill you be getting 3/4 980's.

my profile is out of date................................and i dont want 3/4 980's..... *checs price* hmmmmmmm interesting

[TheDigitalRealm]

 

I LOVE overkill  and the three 4k monitors are

Acer Predator 4k2k XB280HK 28" G-Sync

 

 

You'll still be dealing with a lot of issues with 4K gaming. I'd recommend 3 1440p monitors if you insist on getting a surround monitor set up. The Acer monitor Linus reviewed is pretty much the best you'll get for a 1440p gaming monitor.

[Liamcal]

That would annihilate a 1080p setup. You should be good to go.

[givingtnt]

"Overkill" 

You have an Asus Hero VII thats not really overkill. Plus if you loved overkill you be getting 3/4 980's.

no. he'd be getting 4x titanX

[Raudi_]

no. he'd be getting 4x titanX

True I'm think logical for a 2k Price though.

[TheDigitalRealm]

One Titan X would give you a decent experience on a single 4K monitor. One would give you an excellent experience with 3 1080p monitors. Two would be ott.

 

It would be interesting to try 4K surround with two Titan Xs, I've never seen anyone do it though. Linus for instance seems to maintain 4K being "not quite there yet" in spite of a year's worth of evidence to the contrary now.

 

There isn't any evidence to the contrary? There are still a lot of issues with gaming at 4K. There still isn't a single GPU that can handle 4K (TITAN X is close but in some games you're still going to have to turn settings down) and with two you're adding in scaling issues in a lot of games. With two TITAN X's you'll be going over 60fps meaning you'll get tearing and need to turn V-sync on. Turning V-Sync on means you'll get added latency. Scaling issues are still a problem until Windows 10 attempts to deal with them. 

 

4K isn't there yet. 

[IceCold007]

Its depends on what you call acceptable performance  for 4k. If your talking, can I run games at 4k 60 fps on three 4 k monitor being the latest AAA titles then it might be lacking a little and fps drops to 20 in game etc etc. Or if you can run Minecraft at 3 4k monitors at 144 fps in games and it only drops to 60 fps then that would be acceptable.

 

My personal opinion 4k is getting there but not 100% there atm. Next line of nividia and AMD in the next few years will see acceptable Levels of FPS across all games either in 1 or 3 monitors configs.

Plus the fact that some people are just plain happy at playing 4k games at 30fps on medium settings whilst others aint happy playing games at 60fps on ultra and want to play at 144fps instead.

Everyone is different.

[IceCold007]

Its depends on what you call acceptable performance  for 4k. If your talking, can I run games at 4k 60 fps on three 4 k monitor being the latest AAA titles then it might be lacking a little and fps drops to 20 in game etc etc. Or if you can run Minecraft at 3 4k monitors at 144 fps in games and it only drops to 60 fps then that would be acceptable.

 

My personal opinion 4k is getting there but not 100% there atm. Next line of nvidia and AMD in the next few years will see acceptable Levels of FPS across all games either in 1 or 3 monitors configs.

Plus the fact that some people are just plain happy at playing 4k games at 30fps on medium settings whilst other anit happy playing games at 60fps on ultra and want to play at 144fps instead.

Everyone is different.

[IceCold007]

Crap it posted twice

[PC_NOOB ;)]

how aboot 1440p (x3)

[PC_NOOB ;)]

Crap it posted twice

how aboot 3x1440p?

[IceCold007]

That would be better performance than 3 4k monitors. 1440p is the sweetspot atm. You would still need a beefy GPU setup to run games on all three monitors. But it would be easier than 3 4k monitors.

 

Im looking to get 1 1440p monitor. And the only reason im not getting 3 monitors. is that. I don't have enough room since I have two pc together side by side. Not enough room on the side of the wall lol.

[PC_NOOB ;)]

That would be better performance than 3 4k monitors. 1440p is the sweetspot atm. You would still need a beefy GPU setup to run games on all three monitors. But it would be easier than 3 4k monitors.

 

Im looking to get 1 1440p monitor. And the only reason im not getting 3 monitors. is that. I don't have enough room since I have two pc together side by side. Not enough room on the side of the wall lol.

do yeh have a gpu recomendation

[IceCold007]

Well if your planning on gaming on three monitors and not one.  Then an SLI or crossfire GPU config is necessary.  Titan X or 980 SLI. If you plan on gaming on only 1 monitors and using the other two for work example. Lesser GPU like 970 SLI will be fine.

 

Oh I forgot AMD has some good GPU out there as well.

 

Depends on your money situation. But if your planning on getting three monitors then you should have enough money for some good gpu's

[othertomperson]

There isn't any evidence to the contrary? There are still a lot of issues with gaming at 4K. There still isn't a single GPU that can handle 4K (TITAN X is close but in some games you're still going to have to turn settings down) and with two you're adding in scaling issues in a lot of games. With two TITAN X's you'll be going over 60fps meaning you'll get tearing and need to turn V-sync on. Turning V-Sync on means you'll get added latency. Scaling issues are still a problem until Windows 10 attempts to deal with them. 

 

4K isn't there yet. 

 

The Titan X can play most games at their highest preset, but there are always games that push the envelope of performance whether it be by poor optimisation or stunning visuals. You wouldn't rule out the existance of 1080p because top tier GPUs couldn't max out Crysis 2 on release but this is exactly what you're doing for 4K.

 

The Titan X costs about what two 980s cost, and more than what two 970s or 290Xs cost. The latter two options are very cost-effective (they are less than what people were willing to pay for a 780 Ti a few months ago). And your tearing commend doesn't make sense. You are literally saying that two Titan Xs run 4K too well. You're going to run into the same problem running 1080 on anything more powerful than a 280X, does that mean 1080p "isn't there yet"?

 

Scaling isn't a problem. Like at all. I have terrible eyes and it's a complete non-issue.

 

4K is there. It's been there since the 780 Ti and 290X were released and DisplayPort allowed for 60 fps (although it's only been affordable since the GTX 970's release)

[TheDigitalRealm]

-SNIP-

 

Yes, two TITAN X's run 4K too well. I ran a 1080p monitor with two R9 290X's for a few months (don't ask why) and running games constantly at a higher frame rate than the monitor will allow makes for a pretty poor gaming experience. The 280X was for 1080p what the 390X/TITAN X needed to be for 4K.

 

Affordable since the 970? I'd never recommend a 970 for gaming at 4K. 

[othertomperson]

Yes, two TITAN X's run 4K too well. I ran a 1080p monitor with two R9 290X's for a few months (don't ask why) and running games constantly at a higher frame rate than the monitor will allow makes for a pretty poor gaming experience. The 280X was for 1080p what the 390X/TITAN X needed to be for 4K.

 

Affordable since the 970? I'd never recommend a 970 for gaming at 4K. 

 

Then use g-sync, free-sync or put up with tearing if you don't like v-sync. Saying that a resolution has no place just because it takes very specific hardware to perfectly maintain exactly 60fps without any kind of limiter makes no sense because that is always the case.

 

And if you'd read my post a bit more carefully you'd see that I very clearly recommended two 970s or two 290Xs for 4K.

[Najuno]

There isn't any evidence to the contrary? There are still a lot of issues with gaming at 4K. There still isn't a single GPU that can handle 4K (TITAN X is close but in some games you're still going to have to turn settings down) and with two you're adding in scaling issues in a lot of games. With two TITAN X's you'll be going over 60fps meaning you'll get tearing and need to turn V-sync on. Turning V-Sync on means you'll get added latency. Scaling issues are still a problem until Windows 10 attempts to deal with them. 

 

4K isn't there yet. 

Aha so I am doing something wrong playing in 4K using G-Sync I see...because I can't find any latency somehow.

 

I have no issues what so ever and a GTX Titan X 2way SLI gives me kick ass performance. Your so called scaling issues don't apply for that card, because usually games that don't have a SLI profile can easily being handeled by one GTX Titan X. And those so called scaling issues in Windows man, they are so overwhelming, when I find them I'll let you know.