Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Best Graphics Cards to SLI

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • SLI
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
December 11, 2013 11:28:38 AM

I'm finishing up a gaming, multimedia rig and am considering buying two graphics cards to SLI. I was looking at the GeForce GTX 760's as they out perform a Titan when they are SLI'd.

Are they the most efficient to SLI?

My rig has a Intel i5 4k, Asus Maximus IV Formula, and G Skill Ripjaws 8GB.

Thanks in advance!

More about : graphics cards sli

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:33:25 AM

I recommend the 670 over the 760. They are about the same price (price fluctuates on a daily basis, however!). The 670 is a faster card - Nvidia is going to re-release the 670 as the "760 Ti", and charge more for it, so I've been recommending people grab the remaining 670's that are around $250 while they can.

One or another 670 has gone on sale for $200 a few times in the last couple months. Keep your eyes on slickdeals & techbargains.
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:33:36 AM

I would think if you're in a situation where you need SLIed 760s you want the 4gb version of them. Defiantly more efficient to SLI Nvidia cards over AMD ones as the radeon cards are more power hungry to begin with. I say go sli your 760s (4gb version) and enjoy playing anything you want on maxed settings until you get tired of using them.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:41:09 AM

Supahos said:
I would think if you're in a situation where you need SLIed 760s you want the 4gb version of them. Defiantly more efficient to SLI Nvidia cards over AMD ones as the radeon cards are more power hungry to begin with. I say go sli your 760s (4gb version) and enjoy playing anything you want on maxed settings until you get tired of using them.


4gb is uncessary unless you're playing at resolutions above 2560x1440. At 2560 or below, 2gb is plenty (as is a 256-bit bus).

I'm currently using a pair of 670's with a 1440p potalion monitor on the overlord OC circuitboard (monitor is running at 108hz). I like to have 90fps minimum even in very demanding games.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:45:16 AM

It is for today yes, but Why not ensure the future a bit, heck before Bf4 6gb of ram was a lot, now there are lots of people who have the GAME itself using 7.2 gb of ram at times. I suspect there will be a Vram surge to follow.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:55:17 AM

You're comparing apples and oranges here. System RAM usage is no indication of VRAM usage. BF4 uses that much system RAM in multiplayer maps, when you have full 64-player servers on the higher-destructibility maps. The CPU requires a lot more data in pre-fetch.

This has no correlation whatsoever to graphics workloads.

Even Crysis 3, which is capable of putting a load on the video card that 1. no other game out now can match, and 2. other games will still be catching up to 2 years from now, works well with 2gb VRAM at 2560 or under.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 11:58:04 AM

I know the two aren't completely linked, point being in the past it seems to swing to lots of system memory, then swing back the other way It may never be necessary, but I never thought I'd see over 8gb get used by my system when I built my previous one 4 years ago with 4 gb... now I've had 9+gigs used on a few occasions (doing lots of other things while gaming) on my rig.
m
0
l
December 11, 2013 12:14:58 PM

To clarify even further, I will be using dual monitors. One will be 1440 as the main and the other is 1080 and I'll be gaming/photoshopping at 2560-when possible.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 12:22:00 PM

VRAM increases have been almost completely linear, with no "jumps".

Much as I hate to admit it, the new console hardware is the largest indicator of what hardware we will need in the future. The release of the new consoles is not going to have a dramatic impact on PC video memory requirements. Both systems use pooled RAM, and in games such as BF4 as yoe mentioned (using the ps4 as an example), It's 8gb pool will be overwhelmingly used as system memory and not VRAM.

given that those are identical GPU architectures (in instruction sets and memory controllers) to the desktop cards, the actual video memory requirements won't be much different on PC.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 12:35:42 PM

metro-2033 last refuge (arguably the most graphically demanding game before crysis 3), at 2560 4gb makes no difference.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_...

Running a second, 1080p monitor OS desktop is a negligible graphics workload, even more so for the RAM.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2013 12:45:11 PM

Also, I'm going to guess scnmich's 2560 monitor is running at 60hz, instead of the 108Hz mine is. I'm pushing over 90fps at high settings in every game right now with 2gb 670's.
m
0
l
December 11, 2013 12:46:02 PM

Thanks guys!!! I'll go with the 670's. Really happy I asked first!
m
0
l
!