27" Eyefinity

[suklee]

I got an Asus MG279Q recently - if I add 2 more for 7680 x 1440, what video card minimum would I need? I'm currently using a single R290x and have a 1000W power supply with a 4790k. These days I find myself playing mostly World of Warships and BF4.

 

[RussianSensation]

7680 x 1440 is 33% more pixels than 4K.

Here are some benches.

Looking at frame times/smoothness, Fury X CF demolishes 980Ti SLI in BF4 @ 4K but of course this depends on the test system, and YMMV:

If you are willing to turn down settings to Medium, things look a lot better for single GPUs:

The 2nd game, SLI/CF didn't work in BETA but not sure if it's supported now:

Here 290X and 980 are doing very well:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/World-of-Warships-Desktop-and-Notebook-Benchmarks.151274.0.html

I guess it depends on the frame rates you are trying to achieve and if you are willing to compromise settings or not. If we are talking games other than the two you linked (Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, The Witcher 3, etc.) I wouldn't recommend anything less than a Fury / Fury X CF or 980Ti SLI or similar if buying a new setup. However, since you already have a FreeSync monitor and a 290X, you could hunt down a 2nd used after-market R9 290X. If you look at where R9 295X2 stands at 4K on average, with your existing 290X, I just can't see beating this on price/performance as a stop-gap solution for your use case:

Finding a used after-market 290X for $200-225 could the best bang for the buck in the interim. Then next year reevaluate your choices with 16nm GPUs. I would have also recommended selling a 290X and getting a single 980Ti and overclocking it to the max but you have a FreeSync monitor.

 

[suklee]

Thank you RS for the detailed reply. Running through some costs, 2 more monitors will cost me US$ 1200, and while I could get by with a single 290x, (knowing me) I'd want to upgrade to a new-generation card, easily another $700 or more! so I'm looking at spending ~$2000

Is there going to be a single card solution in (late) 2016 that can power 7680 x 1440 you think?

 

[RussianSensation]

Thank you RS for the detailed reply. Running through some costs, 2 more monitors will cost me US$ 1200, and while I could get by with a single 290x, (knowing me) I'd want to upgrade to a new-generation card, easily another $700 or more! so I'm looking at spending ~$2000

Is there going to be a single card solution in (late) 2016 that can power 7680 x 1440 you think?

Technically speaking you can power those screens with a single 290X and play games with reduced settings. Since I can't accurately predict how much faster 16nm GPUs will be (50%, 70%, 90%?) and more importantly how much more demanding future games in 2016-2018 will be, my train of thought for 4K or multiple 1440P panel users is:

If you want to play in the elite leagues with 4K, 5K, 8K pixels, the cost of GPU upgrades should not be a factor. If you want the best experience, you'll need the best GPU hardware for it.

That would be my own personal train of thought but everyone is different. As you outlined above, you'd have to shell out $1200 for just 2 monitors but remember during past GPU generations how quickly modern GPUs would become outdated on a single 2560x1440/1600 screen? GPU progress has slowed down where now GPU performance roughly doubles every 3 years while in the past it was common to see doubling of performance every 15-20 months.

If you want my honest opinion, if I wanted a large screen, I'd just buy a 40-48" 4K TV/monitor and not bother with Eyefinity. I think Eyefinity is awesome in racing games but for the rest I'd much prefer a single large screen.

I am not sure I answered your questions but I think next generation a single GPU should be at least 50% or even 70% faster and your goal would be far more achievable. I definitely think Big Daddy Pascal overclocked should in theory come close to Fury X CF/980Ti SLI. Maybe you can hold out and see what's up and perhaps rethink the entire Eyefinity scenario and go large 4k screen.

The reason I say that is the Titan X (an after-market 980Ti is even faster) is very close in performance to 780Ti SLI at 4K:

At the same time, we don't even know for sure when the flagship Pascal (Big die) is launching, is it 1H 2016, 2H 2016 or will NV release 970/980 successors and push 980Ti's true successor to Q1 2017? Hard to say right now since the rumors are too scarce on solid info. This is why I recommended you getting a used 290X in the meantime if you need more performance to hold you over until next year.

You know if you want more peripheral vision in BF4 and World of Warships, perhaps another alternative is a 3440x1440 34" monitor. Have you used multiple monitors before for gaming?

 

[KaRLiToS]

Get another used R9 290x or two and wait for 16nm and HBM2.

I have Quadfire R9 290x and eyefinity 7680x1440 and I'm still pretty happy with them at that resolution.

--Great monitors by the way

 

[Grubbernaught]

I currently run 7680x1440 via 3x Asus Swift's and volt modded 980ti SLI under water.

I find the experience ranges from perfection (GTAV,MGSV) to frustration (W3).

Witcher 3 seems to struggle to stream assets at this res, which makes the standstill framerate great, but introduces sharp hitching when moving.

Overall I just feel that while a 3rd 980ti would probably get me to the sweet spot, I will wait untill 16nm and beyond because the hardware just isn't quite where it needs to be right now for the money involved.

The chances of a single 16nm gpu providing 3x1440p gameplay consistently for all titles is very unlikely in my opinion.

As someone who plays at this res, my recommendation would be to add another 290x and skip 980ti/furyX as while the improvement will be there it may not be enough to get you the experience you are looking for.