Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

SLI GTX 780 vs 780 Ti vs Titan Black

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 8, 2014 8:56:30 AM

Hi :) 
I'm wondering what I should get , two 780's , a 780 ti or a titan black
I'm not gonna upgrade in a long time and am gonna play in 1080p
June 8, 2014 9:00:47 AM

For 1080p a single 780 ti should be fine.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:05:55 AM

mr91 said:
For 1080p a single 780 ti should be fine.


Agreed, but out of the 3 options listed, GTX 780 SLI will undoubtedly be the most powerful.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 8, 2014 9:08:04 AM

The benefits of multiple GPUs are only realized greatly when you have two mid/low end cards and want better performance from them without having to pledge your house. A 780 Ti should more than happily crush 1080p at 60fps provided your other components aren't creating a bottleneck.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:09:57 AM

Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:14:07 AM

andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


The GTX 780 SLI is easily the most powerful/future proof option. The GTX 780Ti and The Titan Black are pretty much the same card, the other one just has twice more memory.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:15:02 AM

There is nothing like "future proof "

A 780 ti would be my choice beside you can save money,heat, electricity ,size and everything without losing anything. just use single GPU
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:18:51 AM

But two 780's seem like it's the best solution , so i think imma go with that
Thanks for the help once again :) 
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:19:43 AM

Ravi Gagan said:
There is nothing like "future proof "

A 780 ti would be my choice beside you can save money,heat, electricity ,size and everything without losing anything. just use single GPU


Well he wasn't asking for a completely future proof setup, he was asking for the most future proof setup.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:20:31 AM

andrei65 said:
But two 780's seem like it's the best solution , so i think imma go with that
Thanks for the help once again :) 


No problem :) 
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:27:01 AM

SLI will give you trouble somewhere. And if no trouble, it will often just not use your second card anyway.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:28:42 AM

Eduello said:
mr91 said:
For 1080p a single 780 ti should be fine.


Agreed, but out of the 3 options listed, GTX 780 SLI will undoubtedly be the most powerful.


andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


This is difficult to answer because there are many variables involved.

The 2 x 780's is in theory are more powerful & if you get the 6 gb versions the combination will be more future resistant.

However this is depends on the game because some games don't work that well with the SLI profile and the 780's will have a higher frame time variance in most scenarios.

At 1080p in my opinion the 780 ti/ Titan black will deliver the best experience in most cases unless you have a 144 hz monitor and want to get higher fps on ultra & don't mind the higher frame time variance.

Games are starting to use more VRAM so if plan on upgrading to 1440p or 4k the cards below might be your best option because 2x Titan black would be the best option however the 2k price might be a problem for your budget.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/asus_geforce_gtx_780_s...



m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:35:39 AM

2k is my budget lol so that won't do it , and i'll play on a 60hz monitor most likely
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:49:00 AM

i'm thinking of something like this atm :

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($233.97 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($134.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($55.98 @ OutletPC)
Case: Cooler Master HAF Stacker 935 ATX Full Tower Case ($163.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX ProSeries 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($87.99 @ NCIX US)
Sound Card: Asus Xonar Phoebus 24-bit 96 KHz Sound Card ($182.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Quick Fire TK Wired Gaming Keyboard ($89.76 @ NCIX US)
Mouse: Asus GX950 Wired Laser Mouse ($64.99 @ Amazon)
Headphones: Asus Orion Pro 7.1 Channel Headset ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Other: Asus ROG - Maximus VII Ranger ($211.25)
Other: Asus ROG - GeForce GTX 780 Poseidon Platinum 3GB GDDR5 ($735.88)
Other: Cooler Master CM HAF Stacker 915R ($95.34)
Other: iiyama prolite xu2390hs-b1 ($231.78)
Total: $2473.87
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-08 12:46 EDT-0400)

it's about 2100€ which is perfect ( im gonna buy the parts one by one )

also the monitor you suggested me is a 24" 3d monitor , and i'm looking for a 27" one , and that is under 170€ on materiel.net / ldlc.be / amazon.fr

EDIT : didn't mention it all costs around 2100€ with some water cooling components , an xbox 360 controller and a mouse pad
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 10:41:15 AM

andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


NO CPU is immune to bottlencking high end GPU's. There are many games where have a hard cap on how many frames the CPU can feed the GPU. Those who shoot for 120 FPS know this.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 10:46:16 AM

And I don't shoot for 120FPS , i bet i can't even see that lol :D 
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 11:54:19 AM

andrei65 said:
And I don't shoot for 120FPS , i bet i can't even see that lol :D 

You may not "see" the difference, but most people can feel the difference when sitting in front of the game controlling the view with your mouse. For me, and many others, it is more of a latency issue than a visual one, though I do see the difference if I switch the hz now, as when you get used to viewing things at high speed, your mind expects it.

However, the bottlenecks will start as low as 40 FPS on many newer games, and even down into the 20's in some rare cases. They may not linger at those FPS long, but you'll run into low spots here and there.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 12:45:49 PM

bystander said:
andrei65 said:
And I don't shoot for 120FPS , i bet i can't even see that lol :D 

You may not "see" the difference, but most people can feel the difference when sitting in front of the game controlling the view with your mouse. For me, and many others, it is more of a latency issue than a visual one, though I do see the difference if I switch the hz now, as when you get used to viewing things at high speed, your mind expects it.

However, the bottlenecks will start as low as 40 FPS on many newer games, and even down into the 20's in some rare cases. They may not linger at those FPS long, but you'll run into low spots here and there.


The 4670k is the best value according to Tomshardware and has excellent single core performance.

Some games benefit from I7 cpu's like bf4 multiplayer however @ 1080p with a overclocked 780 and a 4670k the experience will be excellent.

Ubisoft and ID/Machine Games so recommends a I7 processors for Watchdogs and Wolfeinstein.

Wolfeinstein is incredible with my 3570k & 780 ti at 1440p.

Ubisoft is going to create a patch because even with a I7 4 and 6 cores and a Titan black people are getting occasional hitching and stuttering while driving.

There is a rumor that Ubisoft is going to make the game less reliant on the CPU.

I would either buy the new devils canyon 4790k or the Haswell e 6 or 8 core processor when they come out.

Apparently the Maxwell architectures includes an Arm processor and a unified memory architecture that is less reliant on the cpu. Higher Resolutions are less dependent on cpu and more reliant on the gpu however consoles are designed with 8 core cpu's with unified memory.

The future of the pc industry has never been this exciting in my opinion.






m
0
l
June 8, 2014 1:10:35 PM

^ I'm not sure what that has to do what what I said.

I never said the 4670k wasn't a good CPU, or what to get instead. I only wanted to stop the spreading of false information. No CPU is immune to bottlenecking with high end GPU's. CPU's are currently put under too much load in many games, and simply cannot keep up at times, unless you never exceed 40 FPS.

Mantle and DX12 will play a big role on reducing that problem, but it likely will never stop being an issue, as dev's will always find a way to use every bit of power they can find.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 1:39:25 PM

I don't know what to do now i'm confused
My head's hurting because of all this mess lol
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 1:46:21 PM

a single 780 ti powerful card could have been a easier option, don't you think?
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 1:54:36 PM

I don't know , i'm kinda confused because I like how water cooled systems look , and I also like the look of the reference 780's and 780 ti's , but then i don't like how air cpu coolers look
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 2:39:14 PM

bystander said:
^ I'm not sure what that has to do what what I said.

I never said the 4670k wasn't a good CPU, or what to get instead. I only wanted to stop the spreading of false information. No CPU is immune to bottlenecking with high end GPU's. CPU's are currently put under too much load in many games, and simply cannot keep up at times, unless you never exceed 40 FPS.

Mantle and DX12 will play a big role on reducing that problem, but it likely will never stop being an issue, as dev's will always find a way to use every bit of power they can find.


The OP said:

Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 

Basically if I understand him correct he wants us to confirm that the 4670k is good enough for the cards he is considering.

Then you started talking about cpu bottlenecks however you weren't very clear.

I just elaborated on the topic...

The 4670k will be excellent for most titles - can you give us an example where the 4670k is not allowing the graphics cards mentioned to reach their full potential @ 1080p?

.

m
0
l
June 8, 2014 2:43:07 PM

andrei65 said:
I don't know , i'm kinda confused because I like how water cooled systems look , and I also like the look of the reference 780's and 780 ti's , but then i don't like how air cpu coolers look


I have the reference Asus 780 ti and it's great I totally recommend it!

My card is stable and I get great overclocks, the reference model looks great doesn't it?

I owned the evga gtx 780 before upgrading and @ 1440p there is a significant difference.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 2:45:03 PM

mr91 said:
bystander said:
^ I'm not sure what that has to do what what I said.

I never said the 4670k wasn't a good CPU, or what to get instead. I only wanted to stop the spreading of false information. No CPU is immune to bottlenecking with high end GPU's. CPU's are currently put under too much load in many games, and simply cannot keep up at times, unless you never exceed 40 FPS.

Mantle and DX12 will play a big role on reducing that problem, but it likely will never stop being an issue, as dev's will always find a way to use every bit of power they can find.


The OP said:

Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 

Basically if I understand him correct he wants us to confirm that the 4670k is good enough for the cards he is considering.

Then you started talking about cpu bottlenecks however you weren't very clear.

I just elaborated on the topic...

The 4670k will be excellent for most titles - can you give us an example where the 4670k is not allowing the graphics cards mentioned to reach their full potential @ 1080p?

.



Correct , the 4670k is supposed to be good enough for the cards i'm considering , and i'm gonna overclock it to about 4.1GHz , and i5's aren't supposed to bottleneck any video card atm unless it's a titan z i guess
But if i really do need an i7 then i guess i'll get one , but i'm very unsure that the extra 80 euros are worth it , because i might not see any performance increase
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 2:52:35 PM

bystander said:
andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


NO CPU is immune to bottlencking high end GPU's. There are many games where have a hard cap on how many frames the CPU can feed the GPU. Those who shoot for 120 FPS know this.


Wofeinstein is cap at 60 however I never heard that it was capped because of the cpu limitation.

I think you were trying to prove what is demonstrated in the cpu charts below crysis 3 benefits from a more power cpu.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 2:56:19 PM

So a 4770k would be my best bet , right ?
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 3:15:42 PM

mr91 said:
bystander said:
andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


NO CPU is immune to bottlencking high end GPU's. There are many games where have a hard cap on how many frames the CPU can feed the GPU. Those who shoot for 120 FPS know this.


Wofeinstein is cap at 60 however I never heard that it was capped because of the cpu limitation.

I think you were trying to prove what is demonstrated in the cpu charts below crysis 3 benefits from a more power cpu.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

What does Wolfenstein have to do with my post? I said many games, not all games. I never used a specific example. You seem to want to fight, where I'm not trying to.

About Wolfenstein. It uses an engine that ties its physics to the game in a different way than most. Like Skyrim another odd ball example, they behave weird if you go past 60 FPS, so they put a cap on the FPS. Skyrim should have put a cap on the FPS, but instead assumed everyone has a 60hz monitor, and forced v-sync on. I have to put a 60 FPS cap because of my 120hz monitor (without it, my character will randomly swim while on land, and objects shake on the ground, and things fly through the air occasionally).

But that doesn't change what I said. To say any CPU will never be bottlenecked is just incorrect. To say it is a good choice, is perfectly fine. I didn't mean to say an i5 4670K was a bad CPU. I actually said, "NO CPU is immune to bottlenecking..." Clearly I'm not telling people to not buy CPU's at all. Heck, in many if not most examples where a CPU is bottlenecking the GPU, an i7 isn't going to improve things.

It's just a simple truth. No CPU is immune to bottlenecking if you go past 40 FPS, as there are games which either were poorly ported to PC, had dev's who don't think we need more than 30-40 FPS, or simply wanted to use more effects than the CPU can keep up with an hold high FPS.

Our site is filled with people coming here thinking they'd should always be able to handle 100+ FPS with their new cards because someone said their CPU would never bottleneck them. It's simply better to tell the truth at first so they aren't disappointed after the purchase.
m
0
l
June 8, 2014 4:49:57 PM

andrei65 said:
So a 4770k would be my best bet , right ?


I suggest you wait for the 4790k with a Asus z97 motherboard.

The 4790k has a base clock of 4.0 and a boost of 4.4 and it has better quality thermal interface material for improved overclocking. The code name for this cpu is devils canyon.

m
0
l
June 8, 2014 9:54:16 PM

I know that devil's canyon are soon out but what if the 4790k cost as much as a 4930k ? I don't want to spend 500$ for a cpu just to overclock

EDIT : Okay nevermind , bystander's post kinda convinced me to keep the i5 , and i don't think i'll need a second gtx 780 and will spend the money on a watercooling system
Thanks for the help :) 
Oh btw the 780 that i'll get is a Asus GTX 780 Poseidon Platinum , just because you don't need a waterblock to watercool it , i don't want to void the warranty of the 780 , and the poseidon platinum just looks cool and will fit my theme ( red black )
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 4:27:30 AM

andrei65 said:
I know that devil's canyon are soon out but what if the 4790k cost as much as a 4930k ? I don't want to spend 500$ for a cpu just to overclock

EDIT : Okay nevermind , bystander's post kinda convinced me to keep the i5 , and i don't think i'll need a second gtx 780 and will spend the money on a watercooling system
Thanks for the help :) 
Oh btw the 780 that i'll get is a Asus GTX 780 Poseidon Platinum , just because you don't need a waterblock to watercool it , i don't want to void the warranty of the 780 , and the poseidon platinum just looks cool and will fit my theme ( red black )


The price of the devils canyon will be around 339 dollars

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

I suggest you go for if you want your system to be more future resistant.

The Z97 also supports M.2 PCIe ssd's and have other new features...

If you don't want to buy the 4790k than go for the I5 version of the devils canyon.
The I5 will probably have a similar price to the 4670k.


m
0
l
June 9, 2014 4:37:04 AM

Okay , thanks for the help once again , i'm not gonna get the 4790k but i'm gonna go for the 4690k when it's out
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 4:48:43 AM

bystander said:
mr91 said:
bystander said:
andrei65 said:
Well i'm pretty sure an 4670k won't bottleneck any of these cards , but which one of those options would be the most " future-proof " option out of all?
Thanks for the instant-help :) 


NO CPU is immune to bottlencking high end GPU's. There are many games where have a hard cap on how many frames the CPU can feed the GPU. Those who shoot for 120 FPS know this.


Wofeinstein is cap at 60 however I never heard that it was capped because of the cpu limitation.

I think you were trying to prove what is demonstrated in the cpu charts below crysis 3 benefits from a more power cpu.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

What does Wolfenstein have to do with my post? I said many games, not all games. I never used a specific example. You seem to want to fight, where I'm not trying to.

About Wolfenstein. It uses an engine that ties its physics to the game in a different way than most. Like Skyrim another odd ball example, they behave weird if you go past 60 FPS, so they put a cap on the FPS. Skyrim should have put a cap on the FPS, but instead assumed everyone has a 60hz monitor, and forced v-sync on. I have to put a 60 FPS cap because of my 120hz monitor (without it, my character will randomly swim while on land, and objects shake on the ground, and things fly through the air occasionally).

But that doesn't change what I said. To say any CPU will never be bottlenecked is just incorrect. To say it is a good choice, is perfectly fine. I didn't mean to say an i5 4670K was a bad CPU. I actually said, "NO CPU is immune to bottlenecking..." Clearly I'm not telling people to not buy CPU's at all. Heck, in many if not most examples where a CPU is bottlenecking the GPU, an i7 isn't going to improve things.

It's just a simple truth. No CPU is immune to bottlenecking if you go past 40 FPS, as there are games which either were poorly ported to PC, had dev's who don't think we need more than 30-40 FPS, or simply wanted to use more effects than the CPU can keep up with an hold high FPS.

Our site is filled with people coming here thinking they'd should always be able to handle 100+ FPS with their new cards because someone said their CPU would never bottleneck them. It's simply better to tell the truth at first so they aren't disappointed after the purchase.


Using specific examples might make your point more clear.

I've never tried to play skyrim with a 120 hz monitor however skyrim doesn't seem like it would benefit from 120 hz.
Skyrim is fine with a 60 hz monitor in my opinion...

Who said CPU's are immune to bottlenecking in this post?

I agree with you, giving People incorrect information and giving them false hopes is bad.
This happens a lot in hardware forums.

Can you give us a few examples where a 4670k, 4770k, and 4960x would bottleneck the gpu.

" Specific games if possible"
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:16:37 AM

mr91 said:
Using specific examples might make your point more clear.

I've never tried to play skyrim with a 120 hz monitor however skyrim doesn't seem like it would benefit from 120 hz.
Skyrim is fine with a 60 hz monitor in my opinion...

Who said CPU's are immune to bottlenecking in this post?

I agree with you, giving People incorrect information and giving them false hopes is bad.
This happens a lot in hardware forums.

Can you give us a few examples where a 4670k, 4770k, and 4960x would bottleneck the gpu.

" Specific games if possible"


Skyrim benefits from 120hz like any game would. Anytime you move your mouse to change the few, you get twice the frames, making everything smoother. 120hz, despite the push from pro gamers, is universally useful.

The OP, in the very first post said he was pretty sure it would never bottleneck his card. Most likely because he read it somewhere. It was quoted in my first post.

Off the top of my head, a few games that will bottleneck you, depending on your settings, I suppose would be:
BF4 (the reason why Mantle gives higher performance is because of CPU bottlenecking)
Tomb Raider (There are several areas where people are dropping into the 40-50 FPS range, perhaps a little higher if you OC the CPU)
Crysis 3, obviously
ARMA 1 and 2, and even some in 3
GTA games all bottleneck you on the CPU due to poor porting.
Neverwinter - pretty much all MMO's are CPU bound and most multiplayer games.

m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:23:08 AM

What about a 4790k ? I found a great deal for it , it costs as much as a 4670k and i'm planning on getting it and overclocking it with a noctua nh d14
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:38:49 AM

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: Asus MAXIMUS VII HERO ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($209.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($55.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($735.91 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT H440 (Red/Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($119.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Cooler Master V1000 1000W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($203.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Monitor: Samsung U28D590D 60Hz 28.0" Monitor ($675.58)
Other: Intel Core i7-4790k ($349.00)
Other: -10$ In-Mail Rebates
Total: $2595.40
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-09 10:38 EDT-0400)

Here's the build i'll be gettin btw
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:42:56 AM

The 4790k is better go for it! I suggest you get the Corsair H 100i because it will match your red and black theme and it's easier to install and not so big.

"I would replace the corsair fans with noctua fans on the radiator.

The d14 is a great air cooler with premium fans and is a excellent cooling solution.
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:46:14 AM

So overall is the d14 better than the h110 ? Cause i can't decide if i should go for the h110 or the d14
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:52:54 AM

I suggest you get the H100i, If you install the coolers correctly both are excellent!

The H100i has corsair link and is easy to install, I never worked with the h110.
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 7:59:57 AM

The h110 is the h100i but with two 140mm fans instead of two 120mm fans if you prefer
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:31:15 AM

bystander said:
13467108,0,1063466 said:
Using specific examples might make your point more clear.

I've never tried to play skyrim with a 120 hz monitor however skyrim doesn't seem like it would benefit from 120 hz.
Skyrim is fine with a 60 hz monitor in my opinion...

Who said CPU's are immune to bottlenecking in this post?

I agree with you, giving People incorrect information and giving them false hopes is bad.
This happens a lot in hardware forums.

Can you give us a few examples where a 4670k, 4770k, and 4960x would bottleneck the gpu.

" Specific games if possible"
said:


Skyrim benefits from 120hz like any game would. Anytime you move your mouse to change the few, you get twice the frames, making everything smoother. 120hz, despite the push from pro gamers, is universally useful.

The OP, in the very first post said he was pretty sure it would never bottleneck his card. Most likely because he read it somewhere. It was quoted in my first post.

Off the top of my head, a few games that will bottleneck you, depending on your settings, I suppose would be:
BF4 (the reason why Mantle gives higher performance is because of CPU bottlenecking)
Tomb Raider (There are several areas where people are dropping into the 40-50 FPS range, perhaps a little higher if you OC the CPU)
Crysis 3, obviously
ARMA 1 and 2, and even some in 3
GTA games all bottleneck you on the CPU due to poor porting.
Neverwinter - pretty much all MMO's are CPU bound and most multiplayer games.

Personally I like my 1440p factory calibrated pls monitor over any 120 or 144hz tn panel.

If I was a competitive BF4 player and played the campaign and participated in Lan competitions I would consider a monitor with a high refresh rate.

Certainly direct the new direct x 11.1/11.2 & Mantle reduce cpu bottlenecks however with a powerful processor, 780 ti
and windows 8 to support the new direct x features Frame rates will be at or above 60 fps most of the time and more than adequate for most gamers.

Crysis 3 benifts from a more powerful cpu however @ 1080p with my 3570k and 780 ti most of the time my fps is above 50 and the game play is very smooth.

According to tech spot ARMA 3 also benefits from a more power cpu, I can't confirm their results are accurate however they seem similar to other websites and some of there testing get similar results to my testing.

I never got in to Arma 2 and 3, I don't understand why people like the game so much.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/pa...

According to tech spot cpu is not a problem for tomb raider.

The drops you are experiencing might because of the Tress fx or Ambient occlusion...

Tress FX uses a lot of compute power, here is where the 780 ti shines it has significantly more compute power than the 780 because of the extra cuda cores.

GTA 4 is just a bad port and a very powerful cpu improve gameplay but the game just needs to be better optimized for pc. Max payne 3 is a lot better optimized for pc in my opinion however the game play with a i5 and 780 ti is not bad for both gta 4.


I never played Neverwinter however dota 2 maxed out is a joke for my set up at 1440p.
The Star craft which is cpu bound and I don't have any problems playing the game maxed out beyond 60 fps.

I think the OP will be fine with the 4970k for some time.




m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:35:36 AM

Again, I never said he won't be fine, but he will find bottlenecking from time to time. Tomb Raider definitely has bottlenecking, but it is in specific spots. Depending on where you benchmark, will depend on whether you find it or not. The first notable bottleneck happens when you come out of the mountains to find a parachuter on the mountain that you are supposed to find and rescue. Everyone has major FPS drops there.

And again, I mentioned many of the reasons you'll have bottlenecks is due to ports. And it isn't entirely based on it being "poorly" ported, but the fact that they were designed with consoles in mind, where 30 FPS is acceptable.
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:38:18 AM

For me , 30FPS is more than acceptable :p 
Oh and note that i'm gonna play at ultra hd , so i'm most likely gonna play at low settings , will the games still look better ?
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:41:51 AM

andrei65 said:
For me , 30FPS is more than acceptable :p 


If that is the case, you probably do not need all that horsepower and can save a bunch of money.

But I do have to ask, do you find it acceptable on PC games, or with consoles? Due to the more tactile response of a mouse, many find better response times is important on a PC than a console. I am ok with 30 FPS on a console, but not on a PC.
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:44:30 AM

well if i find 15fps @ 600p acceptable on skyrim ( with my current pc ) then i don't see why 30 fps @ 2160p shouldn't be acceptable
i currently have a wii u and i find the 30fps limit very acceptable
i do need that much horsepower because i want a 4k uhd monitor :p 
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:51:05 AM

Do you play Skyrim with a controller? If you use a controller, it is easier to deal with lower FPS.

I'd still look for a 4k 60hz monitor, rather than a 30hz one (I see what you have listed is 60hz). It sounds to me that you have never played games with good FPS and may not know what you are missing. You might find that if you tried a 60hz or higher monitor with good FPS, you'll enjoy gaming a lot more. Back in the day, I played at 30 FPS, but then I discovered that I no longer got nauseated when my FPS were over 60 (80+ to completely remove all adverse effects) and playing 1st person games was much better with higher FPS.

Then again, you may be ok going with a lesser CPU if you are not going to play at high FPS.

EDIT: Are you certain that monitor is 60hz? When I click the link you gave, the two sources that pop up do not show it as 60hz, though they don't show it as 30hz either. Some of these 4k monitors are 30hz, be certain that yours is 60hz.

EDIT 2: Looking on another site, I did see it is 60hz. The sites that your link brought up didn't say the hz and didn't have the DisplayPort listed either. So that monitors looks good :)  Nice price too.
m
0
l
June 9, 2014 8:57:31 AM

I'd get a 4k uhd 120hz monitor but they either don't exist or they're too expensive , and i won't change my mind about 4k gaming , even if i could get a 220hz monitor ( even though there only are tv's with up to 240hz refresh rate ) i'd still keep the 4k 60hz monitor , i played a game in 4k ( can't remember where anymore ) and i was BLASTED by how beautiful the game was , it was crysis 3 i think , it was maxed out , no msaa

EDIT : I might get a 360 controller for 30€ but i'm not gonna play alot with it , i'll play occasionaly with it but only in single player games
m
0
l
!