[Hez]

So I'm in the market to get a new Graphics card. They be pricey as all hell. I'm thinking about doing a multiple monitor setup. So I've been toying around with the idea of using multiple cards in my build. Question I have is, is it worth it? So my ideal setup would be a 4 monitor setup. One 4k monitor for gaming, two side monitors for stats, guides, other shit for whatever. A third monitor up top for computer stats. WOULD it be possible to get a high end card and delicate it to the gaming portion of things? Like it only handles stuff on the 4k monitor. The other card, not needing to be as beefy, to handle the other monitors display only. Or is that even worth it at that point? I'm assuming the other three monitors likely do not require much computing at all if they are just displaying.

Any thoughts on this?

[Overlord]

Also intrigued about an answer on this - I have a GeForce GTX 750 Ti that I'd like to have running a different monitor to a newer more beefy card but have no idea if this is a thing that you can even do (2 different cards).

[Hez]

Majority of research I've done points to a yes. Its difficult researching as almost every article comes up with SLI involved. I'm not trying to do that, just want extra monitors not using the main card.

Most say you can, as long as you set it up that way in your NVidia panel.

[Morph]

Having two cards should work fairly simply. I've done it before to run 3 displays, albeit with integrated and dedicated. The concept is the same, though. This was also an AMD system--I don't know if Nvidia is picky about it or anything, but you should be able to do it without SLI or anything like that.

That being said, having a secondary display isn't particularly taxing for a single card. I've been running two displays off of one card for years, and disabling it has never improved performance or vice versa.

Really the best reason to have two cards is for running a Linux host with a Windows guest virtual machine using GPU passthrough for maximum performance Windows gaming.

[Hez]

I have two 660 ti cards that are SLI enabled. I've been in the market to upgrade for a while now. I don't game often but even my fallout 4 lags so I think its time. the 1050s are pretty reasonably priced now.

The big pricing point is the 4k monitor I want. Right now I have three Samsung monitors that are 27 inch. (http://www.samsung.c...550VSY/ZA-specs < This guy) I want to downsize a bit, but I'm doubting I'd get much money at all for my current ones. To be honest all I really want to upgrade is my video cards and monitors.



Current Specs:
MOBO: ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0
MEMORY: 4 X 4 GIGS DDR3 1333
VIDEO CARDS: 2 X NVIDIA GeFORCE GTX 660 Ti 2GB GDDR5
CPU: FX-8150 overclocked to 4.1 GHz

Im just not to the point where I feel like I need a full new build yet.

[rata]

Yes, multiple GPUs can work on different monitors without any problem.

You can check 2nd hand market to see if they are well priced, but if you can place all the screens properly, just don't sell them. Getting a new screen is a lottery, they can have excessive bleeding, dead pixels, etc etc, so if yours work well, keep them.

I will also say that if you want 4k gaming, forget about it if you play something more than old games or 2D indies. 1080s sometimes struggle to get [email protected], now imagine 2160p (4k). With a 1050 your aim is 1080p, nothing more than that.

[Hez]

rata, on 12 December 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

Yes, multiple GPUs can work on different monitors without any problem.

You can check 2nd hand market to see if they are well priced, but if you can place all the screens properly, just don't sell them. Getting a new screen is a lottery, they can have excessive bleeding, dead pixels, etc etc, so if yours work well, keep them.

I will also say that if you want 4k gaming, forget about it if you play something more than old games or 2D indies. 1080s sometimes struggle to get [email protected], now imagine 2160p (4k). With a 1050 your aim is 1080p, nothing more than that.

I'm honestly wanting the 4k more for the screen space when it comes to doing level layouts in fan-gaming and picture editing. But I've played now with the idea of keeping the 3 I have and placing the one up top.

[Overlord]

Morph, on 12 December 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

Having two cards should work fairly simply. I've done it before to run 3 displays, albeit with integrated and dedicated. The concept is the same, though. This was also an AMD system--I don't know if Nvidia is picky about it or anything, but you should be able to do it without SLI or anything like that.

That being said, having a secondary display isn't particularly taxing for a single card. I've been running two displays off of one card for years, and disabling it has never improved performance or vice versa.

I on the other hand have had 2 monitors on two different PCs and believe that it does slow things down - have seen this on both. I've had more lag on my main one in particular since I connected the second monitor up - it's not something you see frequently in day-to-day use but stuff like video skipping and games dropping frames isn't something I saw when it was only on the single one, but there you go. =P Nice to know a second card is a realistic option.

[redhotsonic]

rata, on 12 December 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

1080s sometimes struggle to get [email protected], now imagine 2160p (4k). With a 1050 your aim is 1080p, nothing more than that.

I just bought a new monitor (IPS 1440p 165Hz) and a new GPU to compensate it; the GTX 1080 TI (best card out there besides the Titan XP), and it handles 1440p with ease at 60fps. I've been playing CoD:WWII at 140fps average, Battlefield 1 at 100fps average and Rocket League, Fifa, Portal 2 and others at 165fps at ultra settings. GTA V is the only one that struggles over 100fps and averages out at 80fps. I heard that the 1080 TI will handle 4K gaming at 60fps for the most part; you just may need to go from ultra to high instead (I don't have a 4K monitor or TV to test). At least at 4K, the AA won't be needed so that will help with the settings. A 1080 without the TI will also probably suffice for 4K gaming with a few extra settings turned down. Any other lower graphics card, you'll have to put the settings to low and then, what's the point in 4K when it wouldn't look 4K?

Before I got all this, I had a 1070 (I advertised it in the RetroBay topic but my mate has now "bagsied" it). This 1070 easily handled gaming at pretty much the same frame rate averages I just mentioned above but in 1080p, but it could do 1440p at 60fps (I tested the new monitor with the 1070 before my new GPU arrived).

Basically, I would go for a 1070 for 3 monitors and then maybe a 1080 for the 4K gaming as long as you don't mind medium - high settings. It all depends on your budget. GPU's are never cheap. But my favourite for the money is definitely the 1070.


As for "will 2 GPU's work without SLI for separate displays", to my knowledge, yes. I still have my 1070 so maybe if I find time on Sunday evening, I could pop it back in and test if this theory is correct (use the 1080TI for my 1440p monitor and the 1070 for my 1080p monitor).

EDIT: Searched the net myself. Apparently it works. Just search on Google "2 GPUs without SLI" or "2 gpus dual monitor" and you'll find some answers.

This post has been edited by redhotsonic: 14 December 2017 - 09:55 AM

[rata]

redhotsonic, on 14 December 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

rata, on 12 December 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

1080s sometimes struggle to get [email protected], now imagine 2160p (4k). With a 1050 your aim is 1080p, nothing more than that.

I just bought a new monitor (IPS 1440p 165Hz) and a new GPU to compensate it; the GTX 1080 TI (best card out there besides the Titan XP), and it handles 1440p with ease at 60fps. I've been playing CoD:WWII at 140fps average, Battlefield 1 at 100fps average and Rocket League, Fifa, Portal 2 and others at 165fps at ultra settings. GTA V is the only one that struggles over 100fps and averages out at 80fps. I heard that the 1080 TI will handle 4K gaming at 60fps for the most part; you just may need to go from ultra to high instead (I don't have a 4K monitor or TV to test). At least at 4K, the AA won't be needed so that will help with the settings. A 1080 without the TI will also probably suffice for 4K gaming with a few extra settings turned down. Any other lower graphics card, you'll have to put the settings to low and then, what's the point in 4K when it wouldn't look 4K?

Before I got all this, I had a 1070 (I advertised it in the RetroBay topic but my mate has now "bagsied" it). This 1070 easily handled gaming at pretty much the same frame rate averages I just mentioned above but in 1080p, but it could do 1440p at 60fps (I tested the new monitor with the 1070 before my new GPU arrived).

Basically, I would go for a 1070 for 3 monitors and then maybe a 1080 for the 4K gaming as long as you don't mind medium - high settings. It all depends on your budget. GPU's are never cheap. But my favourite for the money is definitely the 1070.


As for "will 2 GPU's work without SLI for separate displays", to my knowledge, yes. I still have my 1070 so maybe if I find time on Sunday evening, I could pop it back in and test if this theory is correct (use the 1080TI for my 1440p monitor and the 1070 for my 1080p monitor).

EDIT: Searched the net myself. Apparently it works. Just search on Google "2 GPUs without SLI" or "2 gpus dual monitor" and you'll find some answers.

Hmm... maybe I confused 1080 with 1070 then... it also depends on how demanding and/or optimized the game is, but yes, my mistake and apologies.

[winterhell]

Just looked up a review of GTX 1080 (non ti) and the AAA games ran at 46-60 FPS at 4K, max details, often with MSAA or FSAA included. Doom 2016, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, Battlefield Hardline, GTA V, Fallout 4, Hitman 2016.

If you reduce the AA and go from Ultra to Very High settings, you'll get a very good performance.

Btw if your monitor is running in a 120/144/165Hz etc mode, even if the game gets only 60fps with vsync off, you still get benefits.
Also the first 4K 120/144Hz monitors are still at least 3-4 months away from market release. Can't wait.

P.S. Now that the first GPU with the Volta architecture is out, it might be worth waiting a bit for GTX 2070/2080 to get released. They'd have a better price/performance ratio, and are going to prompt a price decrease of the GTX 1080.

[redhotsonic]

winterhell, on 16 December 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

P.S. Now that the first GPU with the Volta architecture is out, it might be worth waiting a bit for GTX 2070/2080 to get released. They'd have a better price/performance ratio, and are going to prompt a price decrease of the GTX 1080.

...bollocks. I should have done my research first. Still, a 1080TI is working well for me so meh =P

[Hez]

winterhell, on 16 December 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

Btw if your monitor is running in a 120/144/165Hz etc mode, even if the game gets only 60fps with vsync off, you still get benefits.
Also the first 4K 120/144Hz monitors are still at least 3-4 months away from market release. Can't wait.

This I may wait for. Like I said, my 27 inch Samsungs are still running like champs. I just want that 4k goodness.

[Hez]

So I got a 4k monitor. HOLY SHIT I love it.

On the downside, it makes my old monitors look like shit now. So theres that. I want to upgrade my video card so bad right now, but the prices of them have gone up holy shit. Fuck cryptominors.

[Aerosol]

Reminds me of when we bought our 4K TV. I tried using our old 1080p one and I threw up in my mouth a little.

Curse the relentless march of technological progress.