3xVG248QE or 1xPG278Q for GTX 970 SLI?

[gerr]

My gaming rig currently has a single GTX 970 running a single Asus VG248QE. CPU is an OC'ed i7-4790K. At some point this year, I plan on buying a 2nd GTX 970 and run it in SLI mode. That is too much power for a single VG248QE, so that leaves me with two options. I can buy two more VG248QE and set them up for 5760x1080 gaming or I can sell it and buy a single ASUS ROG PG278Q monitor as both options will be in the same general ballpark in price. My quesiton is which would be better for gaming?

 

[Zaerekelt]

I change between using a set of three monitors or surround or a single 4K monitor from my dual 970s. Both options have their benefits.

Surround is very immersive and with combined resolution of my 3 20" monitors (4800x900) it's definitely less work for the GPUs to handle. As a result, I get higher frames with higher graphics settings while getting an immersive gaming experience.

With my single 4K however, 28" 3840x2160, I get the larger image and things look really beautiful even while sacrificing some of the graphics setting to maintain higher, more playable, frame rates.

 

[gerr]

Also, is Nvidia Surround working on 3 144hz monitors?

 

[Zaerekelt]

Also, is Nvidia Surround working on 3 144hz monitors?

That's not something I have confirmed, but based on research and some experience, I think it should work fine with whatever refresh rate as long as each monitor is connected via the appropriate video output and cable and each one is capable of the same refresh rate. 144Hz will be pretty hard to pull off on that kind of configuration though, I would think.

 

[gerr]

Why? I would think two 970's in SLI should be able to power 3 144hz 1080p monitors. Granted I doubt I would see 144 FPS often, but should be well above 60 in most games, wouldn't you think?

 

[Zaerekelt]

Why? I would think two 970's in SLI should be able to power 3 144hz 1080p monitors. Granted I doubt I would see 144 FPS often, but should be well above 60 in most games, wouldn't you think?

At that setup, 5760x1080, you are at 75% of the number of pixels as 3840x2160 (4K). Even 2560x1440 is 60% of 5760x1080. You can look at some benchmarks of dual 970s running 1440p and figure that you can expect about 60% of the frame rates that shown for those benchmarks. Example: if a game gets 100 FPS at 1440p, then the 5760x1080 setup will probably get about 60 FPS. Granted that this is not a hard rule but certainly gives a good idea of what to expect. Running dual 970s on a 4K monitor (one way I do my setup) and seeing how hard it is to even pull off 60 FPS, at least with medium to ultra settings, I would think that even 5760x1080 would be a considerable amount of work to rise over 60 FPS. Shadow of Mordor and AC Unity are examples of games that I can run on 4K but are incredibly hard on the performance if you run even medium settings. So, think of it as running at only about 25% better performance over 4K.

As far as most games, it depends on a lot of things. Most games to one person may be a totally different set of games to another. Check benchmarks for the games that you are thinking of, do the math compared to 4K and 1440p benchmarks (25% less FPS approximately from 4K and about 60% of FPS compared to 1440p)

Hope that helps put things in perspective.