Can a gtx 970 run triple monitors

[seaworthyPACMAN]

I'm sure this question has been asked a 1,000 times but I just wanted to make sure. Can a 970 run games like the witches 3 and gta v at 1080p triple monitor. I'm just looking for 60fps. Thanks for the help.

[Fictionvl]

ummm, 60fps on the witcher with triple monitors... maybe at low settings 

[EposVox]

Are you talking about running it across all three monitors? If so, I'm not sure if you'll get a solid 60fps. Both of those are very intense games. The 970 would be the lowest possible card anyone should try that on.

[Atmos]

It will struggle, badly. The vram will be a problem, and the general performance will be a problem. On low settings, perhaps it can manage 45+ fps, but like, do not expect a miracle. A 390 in this place would absolutely dominate a triple panel setup compared to a 970.

[OAcesync]

If you talking about playing those games cloned on all three monitors then no.

[RyGuy99]

It will struggle, badly. The vram will be a problem, and the general performance will be a problem. On low settings, perhaps it can manage 45+ fps, but like, do not expect a miracle. A 390 in this place would absolutely dominate a triple panel setup compared to a 970.

I'm not sure the 390 would for the games he's looking at. It would do well but only a 390x would probably dominate.

[Atmos]

I'm not sure the 390 would for the games he's looking at. It would do well but only a 390x would probably dominate.

 

Part of the reason that the 970 suffers so much at 3x1080p though is it's gimped 3.5gb vram buffer. Albeit, 4gbs wouldnt be that much better anyway. At 1080p, that's fine really. But just fine, because in a handful of years you're likely to see it as stunted as 2gb cards are today. 

 

However, at what is effectively 3K that 3.5gbs is just not enough, and will bottleneck, severely at times. When you take a 390, which already performs the same, if not slightly better at 1080p, and then throw it into the situation that the 970 was in, but remove the issue of vram because of its 8gbs, then it takes great leaps and bounds over the poor 970 because the 390 is no longer being held back by its vram.

 

thats the same sort of reasoning behind the 980ti : Titan X debate. At 1080p, there's little to no difference. The titan x only has a slightly more powerful core, but at 4k, where the game can eat up as much vram off the titan that it can take, then it really starts to take leaps and bounds past the 980ti.

[RyGuy99]

Part of the reason that the 970 suffers so much at 3x1080p though is it's gimped 3.5gb vram buffer. Albeit, 4gbs wouldnt be that much better anyway. At 1080p, that's fine really. But just fine, because in a handful of years you're likely to see it as stunted as 2gb cards are today. 

 

However, at what is effectively 3K that 3.5gbs is just not enough, and will bottleneck, severely at times. When you take a 390, which already performs the same, if not slightly better at 1080p, and then throw it into the situation that the 970 was in, but remove the issue of vram because of its 8gbs, then it takes great leaps and bounds over the poor 970 because the 390 is no longer being held back by its vram.

 

thats the same sort of reasoning behind the 980ti : Titan X debate. At 1080p, there's little to no difference. The titan x only has a slightly more powerful core, but at 4k, where the game can eat up as much vram off the titan that it can take, then it really starts to take leaps and bounds past the 980ti.

The ram issues isn't news we all know that. And no the 970 has been shown to beat the 390 at times at 1080p. I'm talking about the gpu core. We are talking 1080p times 3 not just 1440p. To handle his games he want's he will probably need the extra power the 390x has not just the additional vram. Vram doesn't solve all graphics issues. People seem to forget that.

[Atmos]

The ram issues isn't news we all know that. And no the 970 has been shown to beat the 390 at times at 1080p. I'm talking about the gpu core. We are talking 1080p times 3 not just 1440p. To handle his games he want's he will probably need the extra power the 390x has not just the additional vram. Vram doesn't solve all graphics issues. People seem to forget that.

 

I'm not saying it solves all the issues, and I never said the 390 would be the perfect card. I only said that at the price, it performs better than a 970 @ those resolutions, which is 5760x1080, considerably more than 1920x1080. And then that because it is marginally faster than the 970 already, if not the same, removing the vram bottleneck from the situation at those resolutions only helps it, where as in the 970's case it hurts it, badly.

 

Of course the 390X or 980 would be a far better card, but also warrants a far higher price tag. If you want to game pleasurably at 3x1080p then those are probably going to be a minimum if you don't want to be playing on all low-medium settings.

[robinspi]

I'm guessing you already have a 970? Or, if you don't, what is your budget look like?

[RyGuy99]

I'm not saying it solves all the issues, and I never said the 390 would be the perfect card. I only said that at the price, it performs better than a 970 @ those resolutions, which is 5760x1080, considerably more than 1920x1080. And then that because it is marginally faster than the 970 already, if not the same, removing the vram bottleneck from the situation at those resolutions only helps it, where as in the 970's case it hurts it, badly.

Of course the 390X or 980 would be a far better card, but also warrants a far higher price tag. If you want to game pleasurably at 3x1080p then those are probably going to be a minimum if you don't want to be playing on all low-medium settings.

Exactly. The price tag justifys the performance though when you want to play games at that resolution and good settings.