3x GTX Titan X 12gb ddr5 3d surround

[TeoMikey2015]

Hi i was wondering if this is overkill for 4k gameing ^^?

 

3x GTX Titan X 12gb ddr5 ill be setting up  3x asus 144hz monitor for 3d surround.

 

ROG SWIFT PG278Q

 

any opion, advice is appreciated

[Deletive]

nope.

[rtpb5642]

Thats 1440p not 4k

 

and u would be okay with tripple 980ti u only need the titan x for the extra VRAM so depends on the games

 

That would not be overkill that would be NESSESSARY and dont expect 144fps on games maxed out, u should get like 70+ on med settings in AAA titles

[LNW]

For 1440p that's overkill. But that's not 4k.

[Killervolt]

If you had the money for it . . . But that monitor is not 4K

[Oshino Shinobu]

For 1440p that's overkill. But that's not 4k.

3 of those monitors. So it's actually more than 4K. By a fair bit. 

 

@OP, it's not going to be near the 144Hz of those monitor though, unless you reduce settings quite a bit. 

[comicsansms]

NOPE.

WASTE OF MONEY,
3 144Hz monitors

& Titans 

[Aniallation]

Three 390X would be a better use of money tbh

[Curufinwe_wins]

If you are looking at that price point, go 1440p Ultrawide. It's a little bit easier to drive and looks utterly amazing. 4k is dead to me now that I have seen 1440p ultrawide.

 

For 1440p Ultrawide 2x 980ti is easily enough for 60 fps on almost every game, and 3x should get into the 75-90 fps on AAA and obliterate everything else.

 

No need to get past the 75 fps mark esp if you get a g-sync monitor. 

[othertomperson]

If you are looking at that price point, go 1440p Ultrawide. It's a little bit easier to drive and looks utterly amazing. 4k is dead to me now that I have seen 1440p ultrawide.

 

Those monitors are about double the price of a 4K IPS display. If you are ok settling for a high quality TN panel you could go 4K Surround for the same price. I might be interested when they start to make 2160p ultrawide, but on the other hand I just flat out refuse to spend between £700 and £800 on a single display.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Those monitors are about double the price of a 4K IPS display. If you are ok settling for a high quality TN panel you could go 4K Surround for the same price. I might be interested when they start to make 2160p ultrawide, but on the other hand I just flat out refuse to spend between £700 and £800 on a single display.

AND? He was talking about 3x Titan X. Just dropping from 3x Titan X to 3x 980ti is enough to pay for a LG 34UC87C-B... And if you wen't 4k surround you would never be able to power it.

 

Seriously though... You can definitely get away with 2x 980ti on a 60Hz (probably more like 75Hz-90Hz based on some benchmarks I found for 4k) 1440p ultrawide so it's still more competitive than 3x for 4k. (and 1440p ultrawide is only about 75% the pixels of 4k, so it is notably easier to drive).

 

 

http://www.maximumpc.com/geforce-gtx-980-ti-3-way-sli-overkilling-it/

http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/nvidia-gtx-titan-x-3-way-sli-performance-review-4k-benchmarks-idnum343/

[othertomperson]

AND? He was talking about 3x Titan X. Just dropping from 3x Titan X to 3x 980ti is enough to pay for a LG 34UC87C-B... And if you wen't 4k surround you would never be able to power it.

 

Seriously though... You can definitely get away with 2x 980ti on a 60Hz (probably more like 75Hz-90Hz based on some benchmarks I found for 4k) 1440p ultrawide so it's still more competitive than 3x for 4k. (and 1440p ultrawide is only about 75% the pixels of 4k, so it is notably easier to drive).

 

 

http://www.maximumpc.com/geforce-gtx-980-ti-3-way-sli-overkilling-it/

http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/nvidia-gtx-titan-x-3-way-sli-performance-review-4k-benchmarks-idnum343/

 

Is it noticeably easier to drive? When you have three Titan Xs do you really think your framerate is going to be affected by 4K?

 

You're missing the point. I didn't bring up 4K surround because it's a good idea, I brought it up because it shows how extortionately priced 1440p ultrawide is.

 

Whenever people talk about how much screen space they have on an ultrawide panel for productivity use, they could have bought three 4K panels for the same price.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Is it noticeably easier to drive? When you have three Titan Xs do you really think you're going to have trouble with 4K?

You're missing the point. I didn't bring up 4K surround because it's a good idea, I brought it up because it shows how extortionately priced 1440p ultrawide is.

3440x1440p is 75% of the pixels of 4k. (3 way titan x has issues getting 60 fps on 4k with hairworks.)

I agree that 1440p ultrawide is extremely expensive at the moment, but imho having seen it and 4k at actual playable resolutions, it is the best looking way to play. And if someone is really going to go all out I'd recommend it in an instant over 4k 16:9.

Sheer resolution isn't everything and to be honest I don't see any reason for 4k ultrawide as 1440p ultrawide at 34 inch is within 20% of the Pixels per square inch (12000 vs 14000) of a 32 inch 4k monitor.

Btw I don't know how much 4k monitors are in uk but just so that you get a sense of where I'm coming from, the 34uc87 is 899 dollars at the moment. The cheapest 32 inch 4k ips display is ~600 dollars. The rog swift (144hz 1440p g-sync tn) is 700 dollars.

[othertomperson]

3440x1440p is 75% of the pixels of 4k. (3 way titan x has issues getting 60 fps on 4k with hairworks.)

 

I agree that 1440p ultrawide is extremely expensive at the moment, but imho having seen it and 4k at actual playable resolutions, it is the best looking way to play. And if someone is really going to go all out I'd recommend it in an instant over 4k 16:9.

 

Sheer resolution isn't everything and to be honest I don't see any reason for 4k ultrawide as 1440p ultrawide at 34 inch is within 20% of the Pixels per square inch (12000 vs 14000) of a 32 inch 4k monitor.

 

How many games even have hair works? I can name one. The Witcher 3 is decently optimised, it's not too difficult to get playable framerates out of 970s at 4K, I struggle to see a couple of Titan Xs having difficulty.

 

Sheer resolution may not be everything, but it's better than a blocker image that's just a slightly different shape. 4K isn't what Apple would call Retina (at least, they shouldn't) at 27", so 1440p is definitely not going to be. In fact, while the aliasing at 4K at this size is small enough to not care about necessarily having AA (though 2x does make a difference), I'm pretty sure the 4-8x MSAA needed will take away whatever performance benefit 1440p ultrawide had over 4K.

 

This isn't an argument I would have if the prices were anything like sensible. If you could get 16:9 or 21:9 1440p for a slight difference in price, with a step up to 4K being more expensive then it would be worth considering the pros and cons of each. But when 4K IPS is the budget option, and by several hundreds of pounds at that the idea of bothering with a low resolution ultrawide is absolutely alien to me.

[Curufinwe_wins]

How many games even have hair works? I can name one. The Witcher 3 is decently optimised, it's not too difficult to get playable framerates out of 970s at 4K, I struggle to see a couple of Titan Xs having difficulty.

Sheer resolution may not be everything, but it's better than a blocker image that's just a slightly different shape. 4K isn't what Apple would call Retina (at least, they shouldn't) at 27", so 1440p is definitely not going to be. In fact, while the aliasing at 4K at this size is small enough to not care about necessarily having AA (though 2x does make a difference), I'm pretty sure the 4-8x MSAA needed will take away whatever performance benefit 1440p ultrawide had over 4K.

This isn't an argument I would have if the prices were anything like sensible. If you could get 16:9 or 21:9 1440p for a slight difference in price, with a step up to 4K being more expensive then it would be worth considering the pros and cons of each. But when 4K IPS is the budget option, and by several hundreds of pounds at that the idea of bothering with a low resolution ultrawide is absolutely alien to me.

Side question... Do you think phones with only 1080p displays make sense?

[othertomperson]

Side question... Do you think phones with only 1080p displays make sense?

 

It's not a question of "how many pixels is enough", it's a question of "can you see the pixels and noticeable aliasing at the distance you are from the display." Why would I in one thread say that the iPhone 6's sub 1080p screen is one of the nicest I've seen and then in another say that I would welcome gaming monitors over 4K?

 

My eyes are currently possibly an inch or two over two feet from my 27" display. At this distance I can see aliasing, I can see individual pixels. I don't need much antialising to no longer notice them, but I do need some. It is not Retina. I would be able to see the difference between 4K and 8K at this size and this distance from it.

 

You need to stop thinking of resolutions as absolutes that "make sense" in all cases. I cannot imagine the TV in the living room ever being replaced by a 4K TV unless 4K TVs (or monitors) come down in price so much that you literally cannot get a good quality 1080p TV any more (like what happened to 720p). For a 40" display at the distance the sofas are from it, it is Retina.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Snip

I actually wasn't going there but thanks for answering in an indirect way. I don't agree with the "retina" "standard" particularly because the distance one places a screen from your face becomes directly related to its pixel density in the first place. (That is to say that we naturally and directly make screens have similar ppd which is the underlying idea behind retina in the first place.)

Example. The 34uc97 gains "retina" qualities at 28 inches away from the screen according to Job's original retina specifications that indicate a 57 ppd (but to be fair I just put it at 60). That may seem like quite the distance, but considering the monitor at that distance still takes up 60 degrees of your horizontal viewfield (And retina related tv standards suggest distances that result in a 40° viewfield as ideal) it really isn't bad at all. In fact, having been to a seating arrangement that was around 2 feet, it did feel quite encompassing.

In comparison, sitting 24 inches from a 27" 4k display, results in a viewfield of 52° and a ppd of 73 which is much more than "retina" "requires".

I say requires and standard in quotes because Apple is all over the place with this stuff giving ppd's from 50-80 the "retina" label.

So really in order to drop back far enough to go down to a 52° fov with a 34" ultrawide you'd have to drop back to 32" away from the monitor, and that'd bring you up to 66 ppd.

So I mean your standards are quite a bit over retina. Which is fine, but I certainly don't have as high of ppd requirements personally.

I am much more a fov person myself. And to bring the 4k display @ 2 feet to the same 60° field of view that I like so much (I just measured my current display and lol that's actually very close to what I have set up at the moment. But I just have 1440p 16:9) I would need a 32 inch screen and that would result in a ppd of 63, which is very very close to the 34 inch 21:9 at 28 inches I suggested earlier.

If you'd like to play around with those settings I'd recommend this site: http://web.forret.com/tools/viewangle.asp?diam_inch=32%2C00&width=3840&height=2160&dist_inch=24

[othertomperson]

I actually wasn't going there but thanks for answering in an indirect way. I don't agree with the "retina" "standard" particularly because the distance one places a screen from your face becomes directly related to its pixel density in the first place. (That is to say that we naturally and directly make screens have similar ppd which is the underlying idea behind retina in the first place.)

Example. The 34uc97 gains "retina" qualities at 28 inches away from the screen according to Job's original retina specifications that indicate a 57 ppd (but to be fair I just put it at 60). That may seem like quite the distance, but considering the monitor at that distance still takes up 60 degrees of your horizontal viewfield (And retina related tv standards suggest distances that result in a 40° viewfield as ideal) it really isn't bad at all. In fact, having been to a seating arrangement that was around 2 feet, it did feel quite encompassing.

In comparison, sitting 24 inches from a 27" 4k display, results in a viewfield of 52° and a ppd of 73 which is much more than "retina" "requires".

I say requires and standard in quotes because Apple is all over the place with this stuff giving ppd's from 50-80 the "retina" label.

So really in order to drop back far enough to go down to a 52° fov with a 34" ultrawide you'd have to drop back to 32" away from the monitor, and that'd bring you up to 66 ppd.

So I mean your standards are quite a bit over retina. Which is fine, but I certainly don't have as high of ppd requirements personally.

I am much more a fov person myself. And to bring the 4k display @ 2 feet to the same 60° field of view that I like so much (I just measured my current display and lol that's actually very close to what I have set up at the moment. But I just have 1440p 16:9) I would need a 32 inch screen and that would result in a ppd of 63, which is very very close to the 34 inch 21:9 at 28 inches I suggested earlier.

If you'd like to play around with those settings I'd recommend this site: http://web.forret.com/tools/viewangle.asp?diam_inch=32%2C00&width=3840&height=2160&dist_inch=24

 

Ah. I'm more of a "ugh my circle has corners and I hate it" kind of guy so I'm always going to go for the highest resolution I can. As long as the FOV doesn't make me motion-sick like certain console ports (looking at you, Mass Effect 3) I don't mind.

 

I don't agree with the way Apple uses "Retina" either, but I think it's a useful way of describing both pixel density and the distance you are from the display in a word.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Ah. I'm more of a "ugh my circle has corners and I hate it" kind of guy so I'm always going to go for the highest resolution I can. As long as the FOV doesn't make me motion-sick like certain console ports (looking at you, Mass Effect 3) I don't mind.

Yea that's actually what I was trying to figure out from the comment I made, but it probably wasnt in the best taste the way I phrased it.

Well there we go, slightly different optimization paths result in a different perceived value of the two resolution modes. Either way I can't wait for them to drop down more towards the 500-600 dollar price range (only 30% to drop haha) and then I'll be buying one to replace my current monitor (and my second admittedly major shitty 19" Visio 1080p screen that I use only as a second monitor for file viewing/side web tabs)....

[Badger906]

anyone who buys a titan over a 980ti is an idiot..pure and simple.

basically the only time a titan makes sense is for video crunchers. where you need 12gb vram maybe needed. but even then only the most avid of content creator will need the extra 6gb

[tourenious]

If you are looking at that price point, go 1440p Ultrawide. It's a little bit easier to drive and looks utterly amazing. 4k is dead to me now that I have seen 1440p ultrawide.

For 1440p Ultrawide 2x 980ti is easily enough for 60 fps on almost every game, and 3x should get into the 75-90 fps on AAA and obliterate everything else.

No need to get past the 75 fps mark esp if you get a g-sync monitor.

I will ask something not from this topic

What would you reconend me for lg34um67 1080 freesync to play every game maby maxed out maby 40+ fps

The cheapest radeon that will accomplishs this.

Thx and sory for side question

[Curufinwe_wins]

I will ask something not from this topic

What would you reconend me for lg34um67 1080 freesync to play every game maby maxed out maby 40+ fps

The cheapest radeon that will accomplishs this.

Thx and sory for side question

Hmm maybe you could get away with a 380 or 280x but I'd personally recommend a 390. Nothing more nothing less.

[tourenious]

Hmm maybe you could get away with a 380 or 280x but I'd personally recommend a 390. Nothing more nothing less.

380X 4 gb is my main plan should be ok right my other option maby is a 290

Im buying it after christmass so therw is planty of time

Thx