Originally Posted by rcfc89
Good point but that is on 3 display's to reach the resolution of potentially one display. The way the gpu's are stressed in 4k could be different. I was just giving a broad spectrum that 4 Titan's would be needed to make it worthwhile in the most demanding games. Possibly 3 would have been a better assumption. And my bet is on that these games will become even more demanding. I'll probably be picking up the 29-32" 4k monitors when they get them all dialed in withing the next year or so. 55"+ is too big for gaming. Right now I think its to early to adapt to 4k technology. I find it funny here we are as Pc elitist getting excited about 4k resolutions at 60fps and the next generation console's are dropping with 1080p 30fps as a standard for the next 5-7 years. What a joke.
Stressed differently? I may be wrong, but doesn't tech like eyefinity render one image and split it amongst displays?
I mean, if you take into account 3x1600p has many more pixels than 4k, and the extra overhead that goes into splitting screens and multiple ports, it shouldn't even be a discussion.
A Titan should be able to comfortably push 4k at >45 FPS without issue. A pair or more would kill it. Just like a pair of 780's shouldn't have an issue. I'd think the biggest problem that the current gen of GPUs will run into is that VRAM has been skimped out on lately. 2GB simply won't be enough.
Ah yes, and at 4k, AA is much less of a priority, so if you can't do 16x, and drop it to 8x the change will be infantesmal.