Quad-Monitor Setup, ready for 4k?

[XxevenxX]

I am currently running 3 monitors on my computer. 2x AOC 27" LED E2752VQ and a TV on top for situational use. My computer specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz 4.00 GHz
MSI Z97 GAMING 7
Kingston HyperX Fury White 16GB 1866Mhz
MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB PhysX CUDA

I plan on buying this 4k monitor: Samsung 28" 4K LED 28D590D and use it as the primary monitor.
How will my computer handle this setup? Do i need to get a second GTX 970 and SLI it?
How would i connect my screens in that case? 2 monitors+TV to one card, and 1 connected for the 4k monitor?
Lastly, as far as i know, DisplayPort is the best cable for 4k, correct?
Any imput and feedback is appriciated.

 

[CraigN]

Your computer will handle it fine, don't expect to be gaming at 60FPS at 4K though on a single 970. The 970 only has one HDMI output though, so I hope the AOCs can connect via DVI. You should be able to get all 4 on one card.

Nvidia drivers currently do not like "sharing" monitors over two cards *and* SLI, so you would need to connect them all to the first card, even if you got two. You should be able to do this though. The MSI 970 has two DVI outputs, an HDMI, and a DisplayPort.

and Yes, DisplayPort is *the best* for 4K.

 

[XxevenxX]

Thanks for your answer. If i disconnect my TV, and get another 970, then only running 2 aditional screens with that 4k monitor. Would 60 FPS be reachable?

 

[CraigN]

Your performance is not impacted by your # of screens, unless you are trying to use all those screens for the same game. If you use the other 3 for "multitasking" and the 4K one for gaming, it will not impact your game performance unless you are running something demanding int he background.

The 970 alone cannot drive 4K@60FPS without turning settings way down. At best it hits about 25 FPS on Battlefield 4 with the settings (except Antialiasing) maxed out.

With SLI, it averages mid-40s on BF4. You could hit 60 FPS with SLI by turning a few options like texture resolution, etc. down. Some less demanding games will run over 60FPS with SLI, like Bioshock Infinite or Diablo III or whatnot, so your mileage may vary.

This review is pretty helpful in figuring out about how they will perform:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_970_SLI/1.html

 

[dooa]

You might look into the nVidia problems with SLI and 4K unless you run Win8.
Which would drive me to AMD - I hate 8 that much.

 

[CraigN]

Not sure why. Nothing wrong with 8, so long as you upgrade it to 8.1, it works fantastically, and is faster than Windows 7.

 

[dooa]

"Not sure why. Nothing wrong with 8, so long as you upgrade it to 8.1, it works fantastically, and is faster than Windows 7."
I think you are in the minority there. Microsoft is bypassing 8 as fast as they can.
8 is marginally faster at booting, which I do once a day. Programs and gaming run at the same speed as 7, which I do all day long. Unfortunately you have to learn a new interface with 8 so overall 8 is a time waster. Microsoft is fixing this with 10, or at least says they are fixing it.
A quick Google shows 8 is not problem free for many. Note how many problems do not have a solution, like Vista 8 will work for many but never get the love Microsoft poured into 7. Microsoft is too busy with 10.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/desktop-software/22313/windows-81-problems-how-to-fix-them

 

[CraigN]

You don't have to "learn a new interface" as a desktop user. What do you really *need* your Start Menu for anyway? There's nothing the "new" start menu does any differently than the old one, except it takes up your whole screen. You can still tap the Windows key and type to find the program you want, or browse All Programs. You can put all the relevant things you need right there on the front, just like the regular start menu.

There are only a very few select things that require you to navigate through the Metro UI interface instead of the desktop interface to get to certain settings, and those are very few and far between, and are easy enough to search if you can't figure it out quickly.

This is entirely offtopic to what the OP is asking for. There's nothing wrong with Windows 8.1 from a program and gaming standpoint.

I'm not saying 10 won't be better, because it will be. But I think that most of the "I'll never use 8" mentality that has plagued this version is largely unwarranted and misinformed for the average user.

 

[RookieOfTheYear]

"Not sure why. Nothing wrong with 8, so long as you upgrade it to 8.1, it works fantastically, and is faster than Windows 7."
I think you are in the minority there. Microsoft is bypassing 8 as fast as they can.
8 is marginally faster at booting, which I do once a day. Programs and gaming run at the same speed as 7, which I do all day long. Unfortunately you have to learn a new interface with 8 so overall 8 is a time waster. Microsoft is fixing this with 10, or at least says they are fixing it.
A quick Google shows 8 is not problem free for many. Note how many problems do not have a solution, like Vista 8 will work for many but never get the love Microsoft poured into 7. Microsoft is too busy with 10.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/desktop-software/22313/windows-81-problems-how-to-fix-them

I have to agree with Craig here. Wndows 8.1 is excellent. There are very very few things that require to you use the metro UI. Honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. And the Metro UI can be used with a mouse, so I don't see why so many people made this big deal out of it.

You are also wrong that it is not faster in games. Here is a video showing someones results from their tests with the two. It is not a large amount of difference, but it is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zg1K-OM1w