Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Can someone explain why 2x780 SLI isn't even enough to run all games on ultra @ 1440p?

Tags:
  • Bottleneck
  • Games
  • SLI
  • FPS
Last response: in Graphics Cards
July 21, 2014 11:06:06 AM

I know the 3GB on the 780 ti bottlenecks the 780 ti, but is that the reason even dual 780 ti's can't achieve 60+ fps on all games? All I want is 60+ fps on 1440p with ultra quality, and I can't seem to achieve that unless I turn off AA, which I guess isn't a huge issue. Is the only way to run games on ultra settings with AA on is 3+ cards? I just don't understand..




http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gefor...

More about : explain 2x780 sli run games ultra 1440p

July 21, 2014 11:14:29 AM

nVidia cards don't tend to handle higher resolutions. AMD however handles them nicely. And if you're planning to go for a third 780... Don't. You're not getting anything out of it. (2 way SLI is the best same with crossfire)
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:15:25 AM

Are you asking basing it on a review or do you actually have two 780ti's in your PC right now and they aren't performing like you expected? The system they tested on is a 3970X. I'm willing to bet that if you get a newer Ivy-E CPU and overclock both the CPU and the 780ti's just a little, you won't have to add a 3rd one to get 60 FPS in almost every game.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 21, 2014 11:17:38 AM

DroneDroneDrone said:
nVidia cards don't tend to handle higher resolutions. AMD however handles them nicely. And if you're planning to go for a third 780... Don't. You're not getting anything out of it. (2 way SLI is the best same with crossfire)


I thought 780 ti SLI was overkill, but clearly it's not. I also will not go for a third card, I just wanted to know if that's the only way to get 60fps+ on 1440p. I'll look at some 295x2 benchmarks and see if it can achieve what I want.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:19:18 AM

295x2 will do that :)  Best card out at the market atm (and not ridiculously priced like that one $3000 Titan...)
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:19:45 AM

Your CPU is likely bottlenecking the two GPUs. Upgrade to an i7-4790k or i7-4820k CPU and any bottlenecks should be gone.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:22:02 AM

cub_fanatic said:
Are you asking basing it on a review or do you actually have two 780ti's in your PC right now and they aren't performing like you expected? The system they tested on is a 3970X. I'm willing to bet that if you get a newer Ivy-E CPU and overclock both the CPU and the 780ti's just a little, you won't have to add a 3rd one to get 60 FPS in almost every game.


I'm looking to upgrade my system to be able to run on ultra settings on 1440p getting 60+ fps. So I am just trying to figure out how to achieve that, but I can't seem to find a card that can handle that. I will be running mine on 4th gen, the 4770k although I am considering the 4930k since they are running it on 6 cores as well, but I'm not sure the slight increase in power would be worth the big increase in price. I'm not looking to have 3 cards, I am just curious if that's the only way to achieve 60+fps on 1440p with ultra settings and AA.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:22:30 AM

Yeah. I looked into it some more. 780 SLI, 780 TI SLI should max out 1440p no problem. Are you running SLI at the moment?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:25:52 AM

Joseph DeGarmo said:
Your CPU is likely bottlenecking the two GPUs. Upgrade to an i7-4790k or i7-4820k CPU and any bottlenecks should be gone.


I would think the 3960X with it's 6 cores would not be the issue, interesting though. So you're saying since it's a 3rd Gen CPU, it doesn't matter if it has 6 cores or not because it's likely bottle-necking the GPUs? Haven't decided on 780 ti SLI or 295x2 yet, but I'll be running mine on either 4770k (Which I own right now) or 4930k (but not sure the bump in price is worth it for the performance bump). I could get the 4790k though, but would that make any difference from the 4770k?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:26:54 AM

What is the deal with "maxing out" all games anyways? No system can max out all games and have 60 FPS. There are always settings, resolutions and bottlenecks that prevent you from maxing out all games. PC games are built with options. These are not consoles where one setting fits all. They give us options, some of which are too demanding on many if not all existing systems, but can be upped with different combinations of other settings and sometimes in future systems.

People consider 780ti SLI and up overkill, because ~95% of games can be maxed out, and the few settings that have to be lowered on the exceptions barely make a difference.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:27:06 AM

DroneDroneDrone said:
Yeah. I looked into it some more. 780 SLI, 780 TI SLI should max out 1440p no problem. Are you running SLI at the moment?


I am not, I am looking to get 60+ fps on ultra settings on 1440p. That's why I thought 780 ti SLI would be enough to handle ALL games, but based on the benchmarks above it seems that it can't. Which is why I am confused.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:27:26 AM

At 1080p you are pushing around 2.1m pixels per frame.

At 1440p you are pushing around 3.7m pixels per frame.

That's almost double the data to the screen.

So if you have a agme that runs 70-90 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS solid with Vsync enabled is possible. But it will run around 30-50 FPS at 1440p.
m
2
l
July 21, 2014 11:28:33 AM

bystander said:
What is the deal with "maxing out" all games anyways? No system can max out all games and have 60 FPS. There are always settings, resolutions and bottlenecks that prevent you from maxing out all games. PC games are built with options. These are not consoles where one setting fits all. They give us options, some of which are too demanding on many if not all existing systems, but can be upped with different combinations of other settings and sometimes in future systems.

People consider 780ti SLI and up overkill, because ~95% of games can be maxed out, and the few settings that have to be lowered on the exceptions barely make a difference.


I agree, the compromise I would make would be to turn off AA. I am just curious what would be needed to run ALL games fully maxed out (Ultra, AA, etc.)
m
1
l
July 21, 2014 11:30:10 AM

Episodic said:
bystander said:
What is the deal with "maxing out" all games anyways? No system can max out all games and have 60 FPS. There are always settings, resolutions and bottlenecks that prevent you from maxing out all games. PC games are built with options. These are not consoles where one setting fits all. They give us options, some of which are too demanding on many if not all existing systems, but can be upped with different combinations of other settings and sometimes in future systems.

People consider 780ti SLI and up overkill, because ~95% of games can be maxed out, and the few settings that have to be lowered on the exceptions barely make a difference.


I agree, the compromise I would make would be to turn off AA. I am just curious what would be needed to run ALL games fully maxed out (Ultra, AA, etc.)


A time machine.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:30:41 AM

maddogfargo said:
At 1080p you are pushing around 2.1m pixels per frame.

At 1440p you are pushing around 3.7m pixels per frame.

That's almost double the data to the screen.

So if you have a game that runs 70-90 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS solid with Vsync enabled is possible. But it will run around 30-50 FPS at 1440p.


So you're saying my only options are to either not enable AA to achieve 60+fps (hopefully) or keep AA on and live with 30-50fps?

m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:31:12 AM

bystander said:
Episodic said:
bystander said:
What is the deal with "maxing out" all games anyways? No system can max out all games and have 60 FPS. There are always settings, resolutions and bottlenecks that prevent you from maxing out all games. PC games are built with options. These are not consoles where one setting fits all. They give us options, some of which are too demanding on many if not all existing systems, but can be upped with different combinations of other settings and sometimes in future systems.

People consider 780ti SLI and up overkill, because ~95% of games can be maxed out, and the few settings that have to be lowered on the exceptions barely make a difference.


I agree, the compromise I would make would be to turn off AA. I am just curious what would be needed to run ALL games fully maxed out (Ultra, AA, etc.)


A time machine.


Fair enough, haha.
m
0
l

Best solution

July 21, 2014 11:32:59 AM

There are lots of options. Every game is different. Some games you can disable PhysX, other games you lower or turn off AA. Other games you disable advanced DoF or Ubersampling. Some, you may change the LoD, texture setting, or what ever is the best compromise for performance vs visual quality.

And here is the dirty truth. Some games cannot maintain 60 FPS no matter what you do.
Share
July 21, 2014 11:33:27 AM

Well there's always AMD to fall back too at higher res
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:35:41 AM

Episodic said:
DroneDroneDrone said:
Yeah. I looked into it some more. 780 SLI, 780 TI SLI should max out 1440p no problem. Are you running SLI at the moment?


I am not, I am looking to get 60+ fps on ultra settings on 1440p. That's why I thought 780 ti SLI would be enough to handle ALL games, but based on the benchmarks above it seems that it can't. Which is why I am confused.

... also, you can't just go by a single review's results. This review isn't showing you the max FPS either, just the averages and the minimum FPS. The games that aren't averaging over 60 could very well do 60+ most of the time but their results could be brought down by a couple of scenes that drop into the 30's or 40's. And like bystander said, no setup can max out every game in 1440p. You also have to take into consideration that some games are optimized for AMD cards and some for Nvidia cards. That is just the way it is. So, unless you have two sets of GPUs, one a set of 780ti's in SLI and one a 295x2 or a pair of R9 290X's that you swap in and out between games, you will always have some games that just aren't optimized for your cards.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:38:09 AM

Some forms of Anti Aliasing are simply extremely performance sapping. I will use SSAA as an example. It is called supersampling because it means rendering the image at a higher resolution and then scaling it back to the desired size. So it might scale it all the way up to 4k then fit it to your actual resolution which improves image quality significantly.. But it will literally be like running the game at 4K.. MSAA or Multi Sample anti-aliasing will have around a 25% performance hit for every 2x MSAA you apply. So 8x MSAA will halve your frame rate compared to no AA. At 1440p however. 8x of any AA wont really be necessary as the pixel density should already be very high. You could happily get away with 2xAA and have a jaggie free experience. Because AA is mostly needed for lower resolutions in which have lots of jaggedness due to its larger pixels. Also if you're looking to SLI cards for 1440p and playing at ultra is a must. Then i would highly recommend getting the 6GB 780's - Ti or 290X 4GB for the larger frame buffer they allot.
m
1
l
July 21, 2014 11:38:22 AM

What is your current gpu setup? Do you actually have 2 780's right now? If not, and you are thinking of upgrading to those for 1440p, you should wait and see what the 800 series brings possibly, they are supposed to release around November.

If you already have 2 780's I don't think I would switch them out for 780ti's. Not worth the hassle and amount you would spend/lose selling your 780's IMO. '

As for upgrading your CPU, I don't think it's necessary, but if you are looking into replacing your board, keep in mind that Intel is releasing Haswell-E this fall, which will support DDR4 and apparently they will have a 6-core CPU, 5820k, for around $400, but I think the PCIe lanes for that cpu are gimped, not sure.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:39:23 AM

DroneDroneDrone said:
Well there's always AMD to fall back too at higher res


Well based on these benchmarks 780 ti SLI is either better or the same as the 295x2, thoughts?





Although it does beat it on Metro Last Light, not by much though.

m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:43:35 AM

cub_fanatic said:
Episodic said:
DroneDroneDrone said:
Yeah. I looked into it some more. 780 SLI, 780 TI SLI should max out 1440p no problem. Are you running SLI at the moment?


I am not, I am looking to get 60+ fps on ultra settings on 1440p. That's why I thought 780 ti SLI would be enough to handle ALL games, but based on the benchmarks above it seems that it can't. Which is why I am confused.

... also, you can't just go by a single review's results. This review isn't showing you the max FPS either, just the averages and the minimum FPS. The games that aren't averaging over 60 could very well do 60+ most of the time but their results could be brought down by a couple of scenes that drop into the 30's or 40's. And like bystander said, no setup can max out every game in 1440p. You also have to take into consideration that some games are optimized for AMD cards and some for Nvidia cards. That is just the way it is. So, unless you have two sets of GPUs, one a set of 780ti's in SLI and one a 295x2 or a pair of R9 290X's that you swap in and out between games, you will always have some games that just aren't optimized for your cards.


Ah, so the hardware needs to catch up in order to play ALL games on ultra. I did look at other benchmarks, but even Tom's only shows Avg and Min, but I'll see if I can find even more.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:45:03 AM

Well, I'd get the one the you could get for a cheaper price.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:47:09 AM

OmegaGame said:
Some forms of Anti Aliasing are simply extremely performance sapping. I will use SSAA as an example. It is called supersampling because it means rendering the image at a higher resolution and then scaling it back to the desired size. So it might scale it all the way up to 4k then fit it to your actual resolution which improves image quality significantly.. But it will literally be like running the game at 4K.. MSAA or Multi Sample anti-aliasing will have around a 25% performance hit for every 2x MSAA you apply. So 8x MSAA will halve your frame rate compared to no AA. At 1440p however. 8x of any AA wont really be necessary as the pixel density should already be very high. You could happily get away with 2xAA and have a jaggie free experience. Because AA is mostly needed for lower resolutions in which have lots of jaggedness due to its larger pixels. Also if you're looking to SLI cards for 1440p and playing at ultra is a must. Then i would highly recommend getting the 6GB 780's - Ti or 290X 4GB for the larger frame buffer they allot.


Oh, so the higher the resolution the lower AA is needed? That's cool, didn't know that. Also, if the 780 Ti 6GB was out, and was a reasonable price, then I would SLI those. So then my question is,
I definitely need SLI to somewhat achieve what I want, correct? If so, then 2x780 6GB SLI or an R9 295x2 is better than 2x780 ti 3GB SLI?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:51:11 AM

trogdor796 said:
What is your current gpu setup? Do you actually have 2 780's right now? If not, and you are thinking of upgrading to those for 1440p, you should wait and see what the 800 series brings possibly, they are supposed to release around November.

If you already have 2 780's I don't think I would switch them out for 780ti's. Not worth the hassle and amount you would spend/lose selling your 780's IMO. '

As for upgrading your CPU, I don't think it's necessary, but if you are looking into replacing your board, keep in mind that Intel is releasing Haswell-E this fall, which will support DDR4 and apparently they will have a 6-core CPU, 5820k, for around $400, but I think the PCIe lanes for that cpu are gimped, not sure.


I don't own 2 780 ti's yet, just doing research on what I should upgrade to. I know I should wait for the 800 series, but I don't think I will because some places say Sept 2014, others say early 2015. Worst comes to worst if the 800 series is that amazing then I can sell whatever GPU I have and buy the 800 series. I agree that I don't think it's necessary to upgrade CPU, and if anything I will just wait till the Haswell-E comes out. Do you think the new CPU's will be running on 2011 socket?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:52:47 AM

WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:56:39 AM

Jak_Sparra said:
WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.


1440p monitor running at 120Hz with 1ms response time and G-sync is the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, however I would personally rather have IPS than TN, which is why I will not be going with those types of monitors.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 11:58:35 AM

Jak_Sparra said:
WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.

G-Sync doesn't change the fact that the PC still can't produce 60 FPS. It isn't going to magically give you more FPS, just a smoother, lag-free gaming experience if your GPU isn't capable of a consistent 60 FPS.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:07:05 PM

cub_fanatic said:
Jak_Sparra said:
WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.

G-Sync doesn't change the fact that the PC still can't produce 60 FPS. It isn't going to magically give you more FPS, just a smoother, lag-free gaming experience if your GPU isn't capable of a consistent 60 FPS.


Which is ultimately what the OP wants I think. I found with Warthunder I can get over 200fps with my R9 290 Tri-x, but on my 60Hz monitor it still looked a bit choppy with the screen tear. I switch on V-Sync and like magic I get a much smoother, enjoyable experience at 60FPS, also my card does not have to work so hard. And what the other dude said, I agree that an IPS monitor looks brilliant compared to a TN but I don't know if they will be getting the G-Sync treatment.

Personally I would have 2 monitors, 1 x 1440p IPS for work and HD films etc, as well as RTS and slow paced games. And then a blazing fast 144Hz 1080p TN monitor with G-Sync for fast twitchy FPS shooters.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:11:43 PM

cub_fanatic said:
Jak_Sparra said:
WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.

G-Sync doesn't change the fact that the PC still can't produce 60 FPS. It isn't going to magically give you more FPS, just a smoother, lag-free gaming experience if your GPU isn't capable of a consistent 60 FPS.


With G-sync, 60 FPS isn't magical anymore. 60 FPS seems magical to most, because with V-sync, it gives you clean smooth FPS. G-sync allows for that at lower and higher FPS.

You may also note that the TN screen on that Asus monitor is 8-bit, rather than 6, and better color production than most IPS screens.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:11:55 PM

Jak_Sparra said:
cub_fanatic said:
Jak_Sparra said:
WAIT! Before you do anything look at the new Monitors just hitting the market now with G-Sync. Here is one so you know what I'm talking about;- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

They match the monitor refresh rate to your graphics card output. So you get a nice smooth experience I think better then V-Sync and without the problems of V-Sync. I think they might only be in 1080p monitors now but I'm sure 1440p will just be round the corner.

G-Sync doesn't change the fact that the PC still can't produce 60 FPS. It isn't going to magically give you more FPS, just a smoother, lag-free gaming experience if your GPU isn't capable of a consistent 60 FPS.


Which is ultimately what the OP wants I think. I found with Warthunder I can get over 200fps with my R9 290 Tri-x, but on my 60Hz monitor it still looked a bit choppy with the screen tear. I switch on V-Sync and like magic I get a much smoother, enjoyable experience at 60FPS, also my card does not have to work so hard. And what the other dude said, I agree that an IPS monitor looks brilliant compared to a TN but I don't know if they will be getting the G-Sync treatment.

Personally I would have 2 monitors, 1 x 1440p IPS for work and HD films etc, as well as RTS and slow paced games. And then a blazing fast 144Hz 1080p TN monitor with G-Sync for fast twitchy FPS shooters.


Well I will be getting a 1440p IPS monitor with 5ms, but I am also keeping my 1080p TN 2ms monitor. It's no 144Hz 1080p, 1ms, G-sync, but it should do if I need to play fast paced games. In my case though, say I get 60fps in a game, if I turned on V-sync it would drop it to ~30fps though?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:14:29 PM

Episodic said:

Well I will be getting a 1440p IPS monitor with 5ms, but I am also keeping my 1080p TN 2ms monitor. It's no 144Hz 1080p, 1ms, G-sync, but it should do if I need to play fast paced games. In my case though, say I get 60fps in a game, if I turned on V-sync it would drop it to ~30fps though?


With SLI or Crossfire, you are always with at least 3 buffers, so you do not suffer the large FPS drops, but you will still get the stuttering due to not having your refresh and FPS lining up.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:15:57 PM

Always have to remember, two 1440p monitors are right around 90% of the pixels in 4K. As others have noted, what you really need is a time machine - like 4K, 5120x1440 is absolutely brutal on today's technology.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:18:18 PM

bystander said:
Episodic said:

Well I will be getting a 1440p IPS monitor with 5ms, but I am also keeping my 1080p TN 2ms monitor. It's no 144Hz 1080p, 1ms, G-sync, but it should do if I need to play fast paced games. In my case though, say I get 60fps in a game, if I turned on V-sync it would drop it to ~30fps though?


With SLI or Crossfire, you are always with at least 3 buffers, so you do not suffer the large FPS drops, but you will still get the stuttering due to not having your refresh and FPS lining up.


So the only way to not get stuttering even if V-sync is on is to get a time machine since there are no 1440p, IPS, 144Hz, 1ms monitors?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:31:55 PM

Just to sum this all up, it is impossible to get 60+fps on 1440p with fully maxed out settings on ALL games unless I have a time machine. Due to the fact that the current technology has to catch up in order to be able to achieve this. So in my case, what is the closest GPU setup that can approach, but not achieve this goal?

1. 2x780 Ti 3GB SLI
2. Single 780 Ti 3GB
3. 2x780 6GB SLI
4. R9 295x2 4GB
5. R9 2x290x 4GB Crossfire

m
0
l
July 21, 2014 12:45:32 PM

Episodic said:
Just to sum this all up, it is impossible to get 60+fps on 1440p with fully maxed out settings on ALL games unless I have a time machine. Due to the fact that the current technology has to catch up in order to be able to achieve this. So in my case, what is the closest GPU setup that can approach, but not achieve this goal?

1. 2x780 Ti 3GB SLI
2. Single 780 Ti 3GB
3. 2x780 6GB SLI
4. R9 295x2 4GB
5. R9 2x290x 4GB Crossfire


4 or 5. Basically, whichever is cheapest but if it were me I'd go with the 290x crossfire (5). The only reason to get the 295x2 is if you plan on adding another one which would be a little more efficient than 4x 290x's, save you space and produce much less heat. If you have a nice big case and your board is capable of PCIe 3.0 x8 x8 then #5 is going to be just as good as #4 but a little cheaper, hotter and louder.

m
0
l
July 21, 2014 1:06:48 PM

Episodic said:
Just to sum this all up, it is impossible to get 60+fps on 1440p with fully maxed out settings on ALL games unless I have a time machine. Due to the fact that the current technology has to catch up in order to be able to achieve this. So in my case, what is the closest GPU setup that can approach, but not achieve this goal?

1. 2x780 Ti 3GB SLI
2. Single 780 Ti 3GB
3. 2x780 6GB SLI
4. R9 295x2 4GB
5. R9 2x290x 4GB Crossfire



Here:- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

I found a 1440p monitor with G-Sync. You don't need 60fps for smooth game play. This monitor should make your gaming experience appear smoother than 60fps on a monitor with V-sync. Even at rates as low as 30fps games will still appear smooth. So you can Max out your graphics and have all the eye candy on and still get a great experience.

Throwing loads of money at new multi-card setups to get your existing monitor to get close to 60fps will leave you frustrated. Even if you get a steady 70fps+ with maxed out graphics on a game there will be random parts of the game where your minimum fps will drop below 60. So you can never use v-sync unless you want random horrific drops and fps. With the G-Sync (Wait for AMD's Free-Sync or the VESA industries 'Adaptive-Sync' if you want) you should experience an uninterrupted smooth experience whether your cards are pumping out 100fps+ or only 30fps.

Although this is all speculation as I don't have a G-sync monitor. It just seems like the only solution short of considering a triple card setup to get an extra single digit increase in fps, or water cooling your cards so you can overclock them a bit and push them closer to your 60fps goal.
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 1:11:09 PM

Episodic said:
bystander said:
Episodic said:

Well I will be getting a 1440p IPS monitor with 5ms, but I am also keeping my 1080p TN 2ms monitor. It's no 144Hz 1080p, 1ms, G-sync, but it should do if I need to play fast paced games. In my case though, say I get 60fps in a game, if I turned on V-sync it would drop it to ~30fps though?


With SLI or Crossfire, you are always with at least 3 buffers, so you do not suffer the large FPS drops, but you will still get the stuttering due to not having your refresh and FPS lining up.


So the only way to not get stuttering even if V-sync is on is to get a time machine since there are no 1440p, IPS, 144Hz, 1ms monitors?


You already know the answer. If you can't achieve 60 FPS, you will get some stutter with V-Sync and we already established there is no such thing as a system that can max out all games and hit 60 FPS.

You seem to have a VERY unhealthy obsession with maxing out games. You'll be much happier if you just turn down a few settings here and there. G-sync is also your best option for what you desire, as it allows you to drop below 60 FPS without much stutter.

This is the monitor for you: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg27...

Read the review. While not an IPS, it beats out most IPS screens in most every way. Though viewing from anything but straight ahead may still be a little issue, but seriously, do you game from off to the side of your monitor?
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 1:26:43 PM

Go 290x crossfire or 295x2. As I've said before AMD tends to do better at handling higher resolutions than nVidia
m
0
l
July 21, 2014 2:46:44 PM

bystander said:
Episodic said:
bystander said:
Episodic said:

Well I will be getting a 1440p IPS monitor with 5ms, but I am also keeping my 1080p TN 2ms monitor. It's no 144Hz 1080p, 1ms, G-sync, but it should do if I need to play fast paced games. In my case though, say I get 60fps in a game, if I turned on V-sync it would drop it to ~30fps though?


With SLI or Crossfire, you are always with at least 3 buffers, so you do not suffer the large FPS drops, but you will still get the stuttering due to not having your refresh and FPS lining up.


So the only way to not get stuttering even if V-sync is on is to get a time machine since there are no 1440p, IPS, 144Hz, 1ms monitors?


You already know the answer. If you can't achieve 60 FPS, you will get some stutter with V-Sync and we already established there is no such thing as a system that can max out all games and hit 60 FPS.

You seem to have a VERY unhealthy obsession with maxing out games. You'll be much happier if you just turn down a few settings here and there. G-sync is also your best option for what you desire, as it allows you to drop below 60 FPS without much stutter.

This is the monitor for you: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg27...

Read the review. While not an IPS, it beats out most IPS screens in most every way. Though viewing from anything but straight ahead may still be a little issue, but seriously, do you game from off to the side of your monitor?


I do have an unhealthy obsession with maxing out games, I know this. I don't want to spend $800 on a TN panel monitor, even if it's 1440p and might be better than IPS panel monitors. I will just turn down AA since I don't even need high AA on 1440p, and that should allow me to get close to my goal. Thank you all for the information. I will be going with the 2x780 Ti SLI because I'm not a fan of AMD anymore, even if the prices are cheap.
m
0
l
September 15, 2014 5:20:17 AM

Look at Crysis. 8xMSAA will destroy performance utterly, but looks almost completely indestinguishable from 4xMSAA. But if you don't run at 8xMSAA then you're not techincally 'maxing it out'. And you could spend a fortune trying to run this at 60fps. When all you really have to do is drop it down to 4xMSAA. Then end result is effectively exactly the same!
m
0
l
September 15, 2014 6:08:53 AM

You really dont need high levels of AA on 1440p.

2x msaa on 1440p looks much better than 8x @ 1080p.
m
1
l