LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Two cards, three displays, four GPUs and six million pixels of pure gaming heaven?
Read more.Two cards, three displays, four GPUs and six million pixels of pure gaming heaven?
Nice review, but you clearly need more monitors
</dr-evil>... six billion pixels
Only last time I check 5.7k x 1.1k was 6 million pixels...
Parm (27-06-2012)
I think I'd be feeling fairly awesome.We've spent the past week playing games on an quad-GPU PC hooked up to three full-HD monitors, but the £4,500 configuration has somehow left us with mixed feelings.
It's a hard life, eh?We've spent the past week playing games on an quad-GPU PC hooked up to three full-HD monitors, but the £4,500 configuration has somehow left us with mixed feelings.
I hate Apple but I like apples
Look how shocking my broadband is
Be interesting to see the results on a big 1440p screen(s)
They come from the dark and slice your head off
I'd go with arousal.Originally Posted by Jonatron
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
I'd say that's acceptable considering we're talking about dual 690s.
Personally, although an interesting read, I'd be more interested in looking at it from the opposite angle - how low can you go gfx card wise to still get reasonable frame rates at reasonable quality at 3x full HD resolution?
My strong suspicion is that my lowly 6870 wouldn't cut it, but I'm still tempted to borrow a monitor for a weekend to go with the 2 I've got just to see. But how does a single 670/680 or 7950/7970 fare?
And assuming you need to drop quality settings at least a little bit, what is the better gaming experience - 3 screen gaming at lower quality, or 1 screen at full quality settings? I know that's likely to be very subjective, but I would still be interested on whether the immersion from 3x monitors makes up for lower quality.
I am a bit disappointed with review, with such a high end set up I'd have expected some benchmarks on 3D-surround as well as comparing the performance of the Quad-SLI 690 against a SLI GTX 680 4gb. I am still not sure how much performance improvement the additional Vram could benefit high resolutions.
I thought that, given that a single 690 is sufficient and SLI scaling here is poor the benefits might be more obvious at 7680x1440.
I am a bit disappointed with review, with such a high end set up I'd have expected some benchmarks on 3D-surround as well as comparing the performance of the Quad-SLI 690 against a SLI GTX 680 4gb. I am still not sure how much performance improvement the additional Vram could benefit high resolutions.
seems a bit of a waste but that is always the case for extreme highend setups, would i like to be able to dump 5k on a pc and not worry about that? yes of course but its only a dream... How was the microstutter in this setup? I presume better than 1x 690 but still noticeable?
I think i will keep waiting, its a shame we cant get 60fps in a triple monitor setup on games like bf3 yet in a dual gpu card and we still rely on quad gpus to do the job its a bit much. I want to see a card that does the performance of 2x690s but is a single gpu and costs £150... how many years will that take i wonder, hopefully not to long as i need to replace this gtx460
.
in two years these will cost £50 each on ebay then i'm all over two like a rash.
Until then my gtx670 will do
aye would like to see 2x gtx 680 4gb at these resolutions as well (just to see , really , that the amount of ram isnt the bottleneck)
I have a GTX 680 2gb SLI and running 3D surround, playing in 2D is fine but 3D may require to lower the settings a bit. I hope they can run a review on the EVGA 680 4GB classified in SLI to see if the additional ram does in fact benefit higher resolutios.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
