Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

SLI and dedicated PhysX question

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 16, 2012 3:08:13 AM

I am building a rig that will contain 3 GTX 690's. Obviously, only the first 2 cards can be SLI-ed. I was wondering if I could dedicate the third GTX 690 to PhysX. (rig for gaming purposes)

1. Most important question: is it possible/feasible for a game to access all of the cards (6 GPUs)?
2. If possible, what kind of performance increase will I see, if any exists?

I will be running one, possible two, 32" LCD screens at 60Htz at high res, if that matters.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 3:23:06 AM

You know you're gonna get ripped to shreds for asking that. Why even ask? Can you use the third 690 as a dedicated PhysX card? Absolutely. Is it an insane waste? Once again, absolutely. There's no reason to have a dedicated PhysX card. Period (especially with SLI 690's).
Score
0
a c 170 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 9:49:54 AM

More specifically:
- never run two monitors for gaming. The gap between monitors is directly in the middle of the screen.

- A GTX690 4GB is plenty for a single monitor up to 2560x1600; overkill for most games but can be utilized in some really demanding games like Witcher 2 or Metro 2033 or Batman Arkham City. For PhysX games you MAY get better performance with the 2nd GPU being dedicated to the PhysX. In fact, not only do you sometimes get better performance but you also don't get the micro-stutter with two GPU's since only one is processing the main game. You'd need to run benchmarks in SLI mode versus dedicated PhysX GPU mode.

- Microstutter exists and can be really annoying at times. It is most obvious when the graphics data changes quickly (like Batman gliding through Arkham City, or driving a jeep in Crysis).

- Microstutter is signficantly lessened with THREE CARDS, however four cards ( or two GTX690's) present far more problems than they are worth.

- More than a GTX680 2GB for a single 60Hz monitor is rarely needed, but there are exceptions. However, for 3D (120Hz), Triple Monitor gaming (or BOTH) you'd want a GTX690 or greater. 4GB (2x2GB) IMO was a poor choice in VRAM for the GTX690. 6GB (2x3GB) would have been ideal.

- 2GB per GPU is considered a bottleneck for Triple Monitor gaming (i.e. three monitors of effective 5860x1080). The GTX690 is only 2GB per GPU, you don't get 4GB effective just 2GB. The only other NVidia card worth considering is the GTX680 4GB model to prevent bottlenecking of video memory at these resolutions.

*So if we compile all the data the conclusion is really that most people are best off with a single GTX680 2GB (single monitor), or for triple monitor to avoid microstutter and VRAM bottlenecks you'd want a 3x(GTX 680 4GB). So yeah, three GTX 680 4GB models which should total about $2000. However, three GTX670 4GB cards might also be worth considering at $1200 if you really go this route.

Also, you'd require a PCIe v3.0 motherboard (some Sandy Bridge, or any Ivy Bridge) that supports three (PCIe v3.0 x8) cards simultaneously and an overclocked i5-3570K or similar.

And obviously three monitors.

*My advice? Stick with a single GTX680 2GB, or WAIT to see if a faster, single GPU comes out around September/October this year (highly likely). My guess is it will be 24% to 38% faster and cost between $600 and $700.

As for MONITORS? I'm not a fan of triple monitors. I have a 27", 2560x1440 screen. There are really good indications that a quality screen from Samsung will arrive by the end of 2012 for about $500 with these specifications (they currently clost about $900).

So again, I'm recommending:
- 27", 2560x1440 + GTX680 2GB (or GTX685 4GB??)
- triple monitor (3x 1920x1080) + 3x (GTX670/680 4GB)

Cheers.

Other:
AMD has the advantage of 3GB of VRAM on their top-end cards, and the ability to turn off the power to the 2nd and 3rd card. That's nice if you want multi-monitor gaming. Unfortunately, there are cons such as poorer scaling in Crossfire than NVidia's SLI, no PhysX, require the 3rd monitor to use a Displayport adapter, and I'm not sure if they support 3D as well as triple monitor at the same time.

**It's all very complicated. If you STILL think you might go that route, and can't wait for the possible "GTX685" details, I can only suggest you look into the 4GB version of the GTX680 or investigate the HD7970 3GB approach pros and cons.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 170 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 10:08:38 AM

(GTX670 4GB models likely will cost closer to $500, not $400)

I don't wish to be rude, but based on your post you seem to be limited in your understanding of how to build a gaming rig. There are a lot of issues that arise with multiple cards. Bottlenecks, heat, noise, driver issues, COST, microstutter, not to mention carefully choosing all the supporting hardware.

*You also should be investigating water cooling if you go down the triple-GPU and overclocked CPU route which adds another layer to complexity.

I see nothing wrong with spending a LOT of money on a gaming rig provided you know all the Pros and Cons. For example, I'm buying a GTX680 2GB (Asus DirectCU II) even though I can afford the GTX690. The stuttering issue is stopping me. I also dislike triple monitors and noise/heat.

Any other questions feel free to ask.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 10:18:38 AM

1 690 for gfx and 1 560ti for physx is enough for any current game to max out and get all the eye candy. anything more is just a waste as there isnt a game out that can max out 1 690 never mind 2
and by the time there is a game that needs 2 690's the card will be out of circulation.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 10:49:40 AM

I like HEXiT's suggestion.
Get 3 good monitors (or TVs) for an Eyefinity setup like photonboy suggests.
Although 3 24" or 27" monitors should be a lot more practical. Pay close attention to proper 'distance to screen' planning. 32" screen = 4 feet.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 2:58:41 PM

I understand that the performance gains vs the cost is far out of whack for a 3rd GTX690, whether or not it is dedicated to PhysX or not. That is not the point.

The point is, will it help at all (having the third card) in the next 5 years? The secondary point would be if it does help, which would be more beneficial, the third card dedicated to PhysX or just running it as a normal card? I play games like BF3, MW3, Crysis 2, etc. Lots of quick changing motion, and highly demanding graphics. I am pretty sure that matters. Also, Shogun 2 is a pretty demanding game when everything setting is maxed.

(btw, I dont plan on using 2 monitors for gaming. if i needed more surface area, i would easily buy a bigger screen. the 2 monitors is for when I am doing work on my computer, i.e. one for MS Office, the other for research.)
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 3:10:00 PM

Quote:
The point is, will it help at all (having the third card) in the next 5 years?

The secondary point would be if it does help, which would be more beneficial, the third card dedicated to PhysX or just running it as a normal card?

I play games like BF3, MW3, Crysis 2, etc. Lots of quick changing motion, and highly demanding graphics. I am pretty sure that matters.

Look back at what graphics card were in use 5 years ago. They're not satisfactory with todays games. No reason any number of GTX 690s would be much different.

If it's not running PhysX it's not much use in gaming. As a normal card, it's no use at all.

Not so much. Those games are no different for you than they are for anyone else.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 3:40:07 PM

So, in a nutshell, add the third card to waste about 99% of the purchase price?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 3:49:15 PM

Not if you're going to run Folding@Home. Or S.E.T.I@Home. Might be a few similar exceptions. Read something awhile back about cancer research using GPGPU applications.

Otherwise, and for gaming, I don't think you can get your money's worth out of the purchase.

Probably the main reason for that is games/gaming systems have to be designed and engineered for the maximum number of unit sales. Which means games being able to run on average, and even less than average systems. And systems that appeal to the pocket book and not performance.
Not 1 person in 1000 (10K? 100K?) will be thinking about doing what you've mentioned.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 170 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 4:12:08 PM

Quote:
I understand that the performance gains vs the cost is far out of whack for a 3rd GTX690, whether or not it is dedicated to PhysX or not. That is not the point.

The point is, will it help at all (having the third card) in the next 5 years? The secondary point would be if it does help, which would be more beneficial, the third card dedicated to PhysX or just running it as a normal card? I play games like BF3, MW3, Crysis 2, etc. Lots of quick changing motion, and highly demanding graphics. I am pretty sure that matters. Also, Shogun 2 is a pretty demanding game when everything setting is maxed.

(btw, I dont plan on using 2 monitors for gaming. if i needed more surface area, i would easily buy a bigger screen. the 2 monitors is for when I am doing work on my computer, i.e. one for MS Office, the other for research.)


Uh.. You are aware that the GTX690 is a dual-GPU card aren't you?
I honestly have NEVER heard of anyone having a 6-GPU setup. Is it possible to go with a 4-GPU (2xGTX690) + GTX690 dedicated for PhyX? Maybe.

However, then you're talking 4-GPU SLI which isn't well supported. But can you add a dual-GPU card by itself just for PhysX. I'm not sure. Would there even be a point to accelerating PhysX when you already have 4xSLI? Very, very unlikely.

But you're talking about not only spending a crazy amount of money, but you're very likely to encounter all sorts of issues. It's just not that simple and there's a good reason that this isn't done. I mention a lot of the issues above.

My advice would be start with a single GTX680 4GB and see how that works out for you. With the 4GB model you can add a second card for more performance (though you get microstutter) or add another one as a dedicated PhysX card though to me that seems a waste of money to use an expensive card just for PhysX. There's no perfect solution.

I really don't know what else to say because I'm not sure how much you understand this. The very idea of running three GTX690's on a single monitor is completely baffling to me. You probably need to spend a lot of time educating yourself on this whole area if possible.

If money is no object (apparently not) then THREE GTX670's make a lot of sense. Three cards minimize microstutter. Even if you could get a bit better performance by using the third card solely as a PhysX card and 2xGTX670's for the game it would be better to leave it as a 3xSLI setup due to the microstutter being far worse with only two cards.

2GB vs 4GB:
I'd strongly recommend going with 4GB versions of the GTX670 (or GTX680) at this point.

Anyway, that's the best I can offer.
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 4:29:44 PM

He just wants 3 690's for the "wow" factor. Nothing more, nothing less... OP, It's been explained very well, here. You're WASTING money for no reason at all. Just take that $1000, take a lighter and burn it. Watching $1000 burn is a lot more entertaining than a 3rd 690 will ever be useful for gaming.

If you're talking about GPGPU computing, then it's a different story, but you're not.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 4:44:13 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
He just wants 3 690's for the "wow" factor. Nothing more, nothing less... OP, It's been explained very well, here. You're WASTING money for no reason at all. Just take that $1000, take a lighter and burn it. Watching $1000 burn is a lot more entertaining than a 3rd 690 will ever be useful for gaming.

If you're talking about GPGPU computing, then it's a different story, but you're not.


LOLed so hard
Score
0
May 16, 2012 4:46:21 PM

I will insert my question into this thread since so many people seem to know alot about PhysX cards here. I am a bit new to the idea of using a seperate video card for PhysX. I just ordered my GTX 670 today (I use a single monitor lol) and I have a spare 450 sitting in my closet. Would I benefit at all by using that 450 as a PhysX card????
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 4:52:21 PM

Stickem said:
I will insert my question into this thread since so many people seem to know alot about PhysX cards here. I am a bit new to the idea of using a seperate video card for PhysX. I just ordered my GTX 670 today (I use a single monitor lol) and I have a spare 450 sitting in my closet. Would I benefit at all by using that 450 as a PhysX card????


Nah. You could use the 450 as a dedicated PhysX card, I guess, since you already have it, but the 670 is more than strong enough on its own. Doubtful that you would see any performance increase.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 4:53:48 PM

Ok for what its worth. I am running a GTX 580 and I'm pushing 2560x1440 resolution on all games with all settings on ultra without a single hitch or framerate issue (smooth as ice). Why on earth would you want that much power pushing a single screen? and why on earth would you need a separate card for Physx nowadays?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 4:53:55 PM

Stickem said:
I will insert my question into this thread since so many people seem to know alot about PhysX cards here. I am a bit new to the idea of using a seperate video card for PhysX. I just ordered my GTX 670 today (I use a single monitor lol) and I have a spare 450 sitting in my closet. Would I benefit at all by using that 450 as a PhysX card????


It might help. But let's be reasonable. Your GTX 670 are so fast that it may be possible that the GTS 450 slows the system down.
Example: Your new GTX 670 crunchs VERY fast the image. But can't deliver the results cause the 450 still calculating the physx.

Recommendation: test it!
A nice test is batman arkham city built in benchmark.
Test with and without the GTS 450..

And please.. post your results here :) 
Score
0
May 16, 2012 5:28:47 PM

Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully I can receive my new video card and the rest of my new components I ordered by this weekend. I will try very hard to post something in the next few days if I am lucky.
Score
0
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 5:38:28 PM

3 GTX 690s? He doesn't even know what he is talking about.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 6:08:01 PM

photonboy said:
Uh.. You are aware that the GTX690 is a dual-GPU card aren't you?
I honestly have NEVER heard of anyone having a 6-GPU setup. Is it possible to go with a 4-GPU (2xGTX690) + GTX690 dedicated for PhyX? Maybe.

However, then you're talking 4-GPU SLI which isn't well supported. But can you add a dual-GPU card by itself just for PhysX. I'm not sure. Would there even be a point to accelerating PhysX when you already have 4xSLI? Very, very unlikely.

But you're talking about not only spending a crazy amount of money, but you're very likely to encounter all sorts of issues. It's just not that simple and there's a good reason that this isn't done. I mention a lot of the issues above.

My advice would be start with a single GTX680 4GB and see how that works out for you. With the 4GB model you can add a second card for more performance (though you get microstutter) or add another one as a dedicated PhysX card though to me that seems a waste of money to use an expensive card just for PhysX. There's no perfect solution.

I really don't know what else to say because I'm not sure how much you understand this. The very idea of running three GTX690's on a single monitor is completely baffling to me. You probably need to spend a lot of time educating yourself on this whole area if possible.

If money is no object (apparently not) then THREE GTX670's make a lot of sense. Three cards minimize microstutter. Even if you could get a bit better performance by using the third card solely as a PhysX card and 2xGTX670's for the game it would be better to leave it as a 3xSLI setup due to the microstutter being far worse with only two cards.

2GB vs 4GB:
I'd strongly recommend going with 4GB versions of the GTX670 (or GTX680) at this point.

Anyway, that's the best I can offer.


Very informative post. I do have a limited knowledge of the internal workings of a computer, hence the reason for this post. For example, I had no idea that something like microstutter exists, although it does make sense when I now think about it. When I first thought of the 6 GPU idea, I forgot that most setups only use dual-SLI and tri-SLI for many reasons, biggest ones being cost/performance ratio and just general issues with using more than 3 GPUs, or even 2. Excluding those issues, it sounded like an awesome idea, 4 GPUs SLI-ed and 2 GPUs dedicated to PhysX (idea was to get around the fact that only 2 of the cards could be SLI-ed, so I could reason using at least another card, pretty much for shiggles). It is probably possible, but it would take a much more experienced builder than me to make it work.

At this point I may buy a temporary 4GB GTX680 (as you said) and wait for a dual video card that has 2x4GB GPUs. Slap two of 2x4GB cards in and I will be quite happy. This would also give me a backup 680 in case I fry my 2x4GB GPUs by accident. (how I would be able to do that, I do not want to begin to guess lol)

Yes, I am a *little* wasteful when buying components, but at least I have a great time using them. Isn't that the point of building an awesome system, to have an awesome time using it? ;) 
Score
0
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 6:17:19 PM

Stickem said:
I will insert my question into this thread since so many people seem to know alot about PhysX cards here. I am a bit new to the idea of using a seperate video card for PhysX. I just ordered my GTX 670 today (I use a single monitor lol) and I have a spare 450 sitting in my closet. Would I benefit at all by using that 450 as a PhysX card????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbww3dhzK0M
it uses a 8600 compared to a 550ti so it would be interesting if a 450 has enough to help.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
May 16, 2012 8:45:28 PM

This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section Graphics & Displays by Mousemonkey
Score
0
May 17, 2012 12:49:05 AM

Best answer selected by joezeppy99.
Score
0
a c 232 U Graphics card
May 17, 2012 2:53:35 AM

Stickem said:
I will insert my question into this thread since so many people seem to know alot about PhysX cards here. I am a bit new to the idea of using a seperate video card for PhysX. I just ordered my GTX 670 today (I use a single monitor lol) and I have a spare 450 sitting in my closet. Would I benefit at all by using that 450 as a PhysX card????


Yes......maybe you wont **see** the difference on lower powered games but your fps will rise by significant %. On demanding games, such as Batman Arkham City, you will see an observable difference, especially if playing in 3D on a 120 Hz monitor..


Score
0
a c 232 U Graphics card
May 17, 2012 2:56:45 AM

For the OP, the farthest I'd recommend going is a twin SLI set up with the 670's plus an inexpensive PhysX card. The number simply don't support having anything better oustside of 3 monitor setup.
Score
0
May 22, 2012 8:03:32 PM

joezeppy99 said:
I am building a rig that will contain 3 GTX 690's. Obviously, only the first 2 cards can be SLI-ed. I was wondering if I could dedicate the third GTX 690 to PhysX. (rig for gaming purposes)

1. Most important question: is it possible/feasible for a game to access all of the cards (6 GPUs)?
2. If possible, what kind of performance increase will I see, if any exists?

I will be running one, possible two, 32" LCD screens at 60Htz at high res, if that matters.


Since nobody seems to have directly answered your question, I'll try to do so - a good PhysX card for two 690s would be the GTX 680. A third 690 is overkill and will not boost your PhysX performance.

Things to consider when running dedicated PhysX:
- A good way to calculate what video card you need is to consider the number of cores your main GPU has, then divide it by four and you're done. Note that it's the number of cores that counts, not clock speeds. For example, the GTS 450 is no different than the GTX 550 Ti as a dedicated PhysX card.
- You don't have to run your PhysX card at full bandwidth, PCIe 2.0 x4 would do. Those lines don't have to branch out straight from the CPU - it's safe to use the PCH.

As for your setup - I, too, wouldn't recommend running 4 GPUs as you'll inevitably suffer from micro stuttering. I don't know of a single person that doesn't regret opting for 4 GPUs. You're much better off running 2 GPUs - if you absolutely must have additional performance try 3 overclocked 680s (of course, for that you'd need a Sandy Bridge E and quite the mainboard). A good PhysX card for that setup would be a single 670.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:12:52 AM

yhselp said:
Since nobody seems to have directly answered your question, I'll try to do so - a good PhysX card for two 690s would be the GTX 680. A third 690 is overkill and will not boost your PhysX performance.

Things to consider when running dedicated PhysX:
- A good way to calculate what video card you need is to consider the number of cores your main GPU has, then divide it by four and you're done. Note that it's the number of cores that counts, not clock speeds. For example, the GTS 450 is no different than the GTX 550 Ti as a dedicated PhysX card.
- You don't have to run your PhysX card at full bandwidth, PCIe 2.0 x4 would do. Those lines don't have to branch out straight from the CPU - it's safe to use the PCH.

As for your setup - I, too, wouldn't recommend running 4 GPUs as you'll inevitably suffer from micro stuttering. I don't know of a single person that doesn't regret opting for 4 GPUs. You're much better off running 2 GPUs - if you absolutely must have additional performance try 3 overclocked 680s (of course, for that you'd need a Sandy Bridge E and quite the mainboard). A good PhysX card for that setup would be a single 670.



thanks for the direct and concise response. my goal is to basically overkill (and sorta bragging rights, but not really). I want to squeeze every drop of performance as possible, if that means extra cost, no problem.

I want to pack as much GPU punch in as few PCI x16 slots as possible, thats my reason for wanting to use dual-GPU cards. with my idea, in its infancy, I would only need to use 3 slots, leaving at least an extra slot for something else. 3 GTX 680s use 3 slots, but they do not pack the bunch of 3 GTX 690s for obvious reasons. It is overkill, I know, but if it means I can squeeze some extra power from the setup, it's worth it to me.

long story short, I want to use 3 690s, I need to know how I can make that happen, whether it makes great or far less than great performance increases. (revision to original idea: 3 of 4 GPUs (first two cards) SLI-ed. remaining 3 GPUs dedicated to PhysX. (YES, I KNOW, WAY OVERBOARD FOR PHYSX)

You people probably take me for a fool lol
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 4:20:20 AM

joezeppy99 said:
You people probably take me for a fool lol


How correct you are, sir. :lol:  But whatever, if you have the money to burn for such a useless thing, more power to you. Just know that in 3-4 years (maybe less), even a single card system will match what you're trying to accomplish, no matter what you do. Future proofing is a stupid concept, IMO. Never mind the fact that a dedicated PhysX card alongside SLI 690's is a stupid concept too. But we've been over this in this thread already, so I'll just shut up and let you waste your money. :lol:  :pt1cable: 
Score
0
May 23, 2012 12:38:21 PM

joezeppy99 said:
thanks for the direct and concise response. my goal is to basically overkill (and sorta bragging rights, but not really). I want to squeeze every drop of performance as possible, if that means extra cost, no problem.

I want to pack as much GPU punch in as few PCI x16 slots as possible, thats my reason for wanting to use dual-GPU cards. with my idea, in its infancy, I would only need to use 3 slots, leaving at least an extra slot for something else. 3 GTX 680s use 3 slots, but they do not pack the bunch of 3 GTX 690s for obvious reasons. It is overkill, I know, but if it means I can squeeze some extra power from the setup, it's worth it to me.

long story short, I want to use 3 690s, I need to know how I can make that happen, whether it makes great or far less than great performance increases. (revision to original idea: 3 of 4 GPUs (first two cards) SLI-ed. remaining 3 GPUs dedicated to PhysX. (YES, I KNOW, WAY OVERBOARD FOR PHYSX)

You people probably take me for a fool lol


Alright, so, there are a few things to keep in mind in that case:
- While you can dedicate any nVidia video card to PhysX, you cannot use more than one GPU. What that means is even if you dedicate a GTX 690 to PhysX, you won't be able to use the 'whole' of it - the performance would be just the same as if you were using a GTX 680. The maximum number of GPUs you can use in a system is five - four for rendering graphics and one for computing PhysX.
- In your case, it's not so much a matter of PCIe slots available, but of bandwidth. Sandy and Ivy Bridge only have 16 lanes available, which technically means you can only run one GTX 690 at full capacity. When building such an enthusiast-grade system you really need as much bandwidth (system memory too) as possible - your only real choice is Sandy Bridge-E (40 lanes). The good news is that nVidia used a 3rd party (PLX) PCIe bridge in the GTX 690 which opens up PCIe 3.0 support.

My advice is that you get an i7-3820 + 16GB of RAM (4x4) if gaming is your primary goal, or an i7-3930K/i7-3960X + 32GB of RAM (4x8) if you plan on using the system as serious workstation as well. With this setup you'd be able to run both GTX 690s at x16 PCIe 3.0 and even have x8 left for the PhysX card. Of course, the absolute most important component in a modern system (never mind enthusiast) is the storage drive - it only makes sense that you go for a PCIe-based SSD, the 'sweet spot' for which is a 240GB OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2.
Score
0
a c 170 U Graphics card
May 24, 2012 12:50:05 AM

After much consideration, I'm standing by this as the graphics component of the "best" high-end gaming system, though it is definitely not what I would buy.

3x (GTX680 4GB)

Why?
- 3x SLI mostly eliminates the micro-stutter that two cards exhibit
- 4GB instead of 2GB per GPU for higher resolutions where the 2GB is insufficient, or for HD texture packs (i.e. Skyrim) that drive up the VRAM cost.

On the other hand, there are advantages to going with an AMD solution such as:
3x (HD7970 3GB)

- 3GB models already exist (and are available)
- price is reasonable (4GB GTX's can be way overpriced, at least so far)
- ZERO power on the 2nd and 3rd card when not needed

Disadvantage: No PHYSX.

There are pros and cons. This thread is about using a 3xGTX690 setup as well as PhysX. I think if price is no issue the first solution makes a lot of sense, especially if 4GB models drop in price.

The GTX690 is a nicely engineered card though I think the 2GB per GPU is a serious flaw in the design. Since they've openly talked about a 2xGTX690 setup for enthusiasts, 4GB per GPU should have been used. It's not like the total cost at up to $1300 per GTX690 would have been affected much.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
October 9, 2012 7:30:52 AM

This topic has been closed by MouseMonkey
Score
0
!