4K Gaming PC Help

[adamb1897]

I want to build a 4K gaming PC and I want to know what graphics card(s) I would need to run the newest games such as Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Battlefield Hardline. I have a budget of $1550 or so. I am currently thinking of this:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/py6hxr
If this is not going to be able to run those game at 45-50fps I would like to know what it would take to make it do that and any other thoughts on the build.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/py6hxr
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/py6hxr/by_merchant/
■
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($319.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($101.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($369.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($369.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Fractal Design Define R4 (Black Pearl) ATX Mid Tower Case ($99.75 @ Directron)
Power Supply: Antec HCG M 850W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1559.43
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-25 18:28 EST-0500

 

[Jonathan Cave]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-970-sli-review,22.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/898-geforce-gtx-970-sli-4k-gaming/

This should help.

IMO 4k gaming is really not great at the moment as i want to personally play all games 60FPS minimum - i'd invest in a good 1440p 144hz monitor and wait a year or so.

alternativey you could go for 2 x 980's but that will push you over budget and still then you may achieve the ~45 - 60 FPS at a premium.

Great build overall but i'd go for the R5 case for $9 more and change the EVGA for MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G Twin Frozr V - it overclocks better.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnS0xWtoRzk"][/video]

 

[adamb1897]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-970-sli-review,22.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/898-geforce-gtx-970-sli-4k-gaming/

This should help.

IMO 4k gaming is really not great at the moment as i want to personally play all games 60FPS minimum - i'd invest in a good 1440p 144hz monitor and wait a year or so.

alternativey you could go for 2 x 980's but that will push you over budget and still then you may achieve the ~45 - 60 FPS at a premium.

Great build overall but i'd go for the R5 case for $9 more and change the EVGA for MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G Twin Frozr V - it overclocks better.

How would 1 gtx 970 preform at 1440p so I could save the $360 or would I need 2 for that? Also, is it worth spending another $360 on the 2 gtx 980s or should I just go for 1440p?

 

[bobs616]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

 

[adamb1897]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

Did you seen how any first person shooters work on your gaming rig because that is what I will mainly be playing. Also, how much better does 4K look compared to 1080p?

 

[bobs616]

Not too much into FPS I did play some with x-com which looked good to me. The big thing about 4K is you get to see more at one time but all on the same monitor vs. having multiple monitors. I especially love games that are mapped based having those really big maps is nice and in programs like KSP having more scenery on screen is also nice.

As far as quality goes that probably depends on the monitor, I have a Panasonic 58" TV/monitor (fed via Displayport) and it's very, very, nice though the only 4K content I have for it is the various games (for video it looks great too but of course it's just upscaling the content to 4k with a small bit of enhancement thrown in but a good highend modern 1080p TV would probably look about the same). For an LCD this particular monitor is very good in black detail which I find useful is nice even is some games I've noticed details I didn't see before (of course my old monitor was 40" so that's part of it). It has a game mode and I've never had any lag issues which is one thing you might consider if you usually play FPS games, I haven't looked for a few months at the latest offerings, but 4k monitors generally have a fairly high lag rate compared to 1080/1440 and this might be a reason for you to not consider one. I did play some PS4 FPS shooter games on it (in 1080p upscaled) I noticed no more lag time (only time lag came in was trying to shoot fast moving flying objects going parallel to me which is I think as it should be) than with a six year old LCD monitor, but if you are used to a monitor with a very low lag rate it might be an issue.

 

[-Lone-]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

Did you seen how any first person shooters work on your gaming rig because that is what I will mainly be playing. Also, how much better does 4K look compared to 1080p?

Huge difference in visual if you switch directly from 1080p to 4k.

 

[adamb1897]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

Did you seen how any first person shooters work on your gaming rig because that is what I will mainly be playing. Also, how much better does 4K look compared to 1080p?

Huge difference in visual if you switch directly from 1080p to 4k.

What graphics cards do you recommend for 4K gaming with my $1550 budget or does the budget need to be expanded? Also, what fps would the system be able to play new games at?

 

[-Lone-]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

Did you seen how any first person shooters work on your gaming rig because that is what I will mainly be playing. Also, how much better does 4K look compared to 1080p?

Huge difference in visual if you switch directly from 1080p to 4k.

What graphics cards do you recommend for 4K gaming with my $1550 budget or does the budget need to be expanded? Also, what fps would the system be able to play new games at?

If you can wait, I would get the new 390x when it is out, one of them will last you for awhile, get a 2nd one and you won't need another, and my guess is the card will be around $600 when it is out.

 

[adamb1897]

Until recently I was running 4K with two 770 4GB windforce cards, it did very nicely on things like KSP. This was with an i7 2600K slightly overclocked. Now I'm moving to an x99 based system though I'll keep the 770's and I'm only moving because of a defective motherboard.

As long as I can run the graphics with fairly high detail and my frame rate doesn't drop much below say 40 I'm happy, I don't go by what a benchmark says I go by what my eyes can see. Those 970's should keep you happy for now even at 4k if you don't worry too much about FPS always being perfect also you can often really turn down (or off) AA when using a 4K monitor since the pixels are so small which can boost your performance if needed.

On a side note even old games like Civ5 and Sins of a Solar Empire rebellion work fine on a single 770 card running at 4k, but they have to be moded a bit to make the text readable in 4K some of the newer games coming out though are starting to allow for the larger text you need in 4K (and my 4k monitor/tv is 58" not exactly small).

Did you seen how any first person shooters work on your gaming rig because that is what I will mainly be playing. Also, how much better does 4K look compared to 1080p?

Huge difference in visual if you switch directly from 1080p to 4k.

What graphics cards do you recommend for 4K gaming with my $1550 budget or does the budget need to be expanded? Also, what fps would the system be able to play new games at?

If you can wait, I would get the new 390x when it is out, one of them will last you for awhile, get a 2nd one and you won't need another, and my guess is the card will be around $600 when it is out.

That would put me over budget, but how necessary is it to get 2 top tier cards over 2 second tier cards such as the gtx 970 or the AMD 290x?

 

[-Lone-]

This is about the price that it will look like if you wait or don't want to wait, that's assuming my guess about the new card's price is right. With the 970s, you won't be able to use ultra settings due to the 3.5GB of VRAM, but ultra is not necessary at 4k if you don't want to go to the max. You'll still see the beauty of 4k, the only difference you may notice is the light and shadow between ultra and low settings. So if you don't want to wait, I would go with a single 295x2 if you want ultra settings. But I think you really should wait because you'll need a strong single card to run games that doesn't work that well with SLI or CFX.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/XxLkyc

 

[bobs616]

Just to be clear the jump to 4K on a PC is more about screen real-estate than quality of the picture, though since 4k monitors (except the really cheap ones) are fairly new they tend to have all the latest enhancements etc. to get the most out of the LCDs. In video the jump to 4k is not as spectacular as the jump from 480 to 1080 was, some people are thrilled by it but mostly just video-phials for others they have a hard time telling the diff between 4k and 1080p (but we have to factor in things like how close to the monitor they are, how well the monitor is set up etc.). But all said and done I don't like having had to go back to 1080p which is why I'm selling my sole to raise the $$$ to go back to 4k...a month back at 1080p has been a month too long.

Until 4k Blu-ray ever gets going (unless you have a good fast unlimited internet connection) 4k video is probably not an issue but for gaming I think it will be future on the high end...who doesn't want to see more of the bad guys sneaking up on you? I'm sure people will start doing triple/quad 4k monitors as soon as graphics cards can handle them .

 

[adamb1897]

Is using the one 295x2 card better than using the 2 SLI gtx 970s and would the one card be able to handle ultra settings unlike the 2 970s?

However, if I was to wait because I have time, how much better of a card do you think I would be getting?

 

[adamb1897]

Just to be clear the jump to 4K on a PC is more about screen real-estate than quality of the picture, though since 4k monitors (except the really cheap ones) are fairly new they tend to have all the latest enhancements etc. to get the most out of the LCDs. In video the jump to 4k is not as spectacular as the jump from 480 to 1080 was, some people are thrilled by it but mostly just video-phials for others they have a hard time telling the diff between 4k and 1080p (but we have to factor in things like how close to the monitor they are, how well the monitor is set up etc.). But all said and done I don't like having had to go back to 1080p which is why I'm selling my sole to raise the $$$ to go back to 4k...a month back at 1080p has been a month too long.

Until 4k Blu-ray ever gets going (unless you have a good fast unlimited internet connection) 4k video is probably not an issue but for gaming I think it will be future on the high end...who doesn't want to see more of the bad guys sneaking up on you? I'm sure people will start doing triple/quad 4k monitors as soon as graphics cards can handle them .

Ok. Then I think it is worth the extra money to buy a 4K gaming PC then, but the question what to use to power it?

 

[-Lone-]

Is using the one 295x2 card better than using the 2 SLI gtx 970s and would the one card be able to handle ultra settings unlike the 2 970s?

However, if I was to wait because I have time, how much better of a card do you think I would be getting?

Much better because you'll be able to gain more than 4GB of VRAM, then ultra settings is much more...accessible. Also the cards will use less power than the previous AMD cards. And actually you don't have to enable CFX on the 295x2 in most games because 1x 290x on it is enough for older games and some new ones. By older games I mean like Skyrim, Mass Effect Trilogy, Fable Anniversary, etc, you'll get constant 60 fps in those kind of games. By new games I mean like BF4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, FC4. The only game that I have encountered that absolutely needs CFX is Crysis 3. Also it will depend on the game, you may get like 35-60 fps (FC4), then you may get like 90-120 fps in BF4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

[bobs616]

As Lone said not all games can benefit from SLI you might want to look at the benchmarks for the games you want to play most and see what if any benefit they get from SLI especially at the highest res they were tested in. If it were me I'd go with best single card I could afford and then save up for a second one, that's what I did with my 770's. But if all the games you want to play do benefit greatly from SLI that you might just want to do that now, the benchmarks might help you decide which is best. There won't be any perfect solution unless you have an unlimited budget and can afford the fastest cpu and the fastest gpu.

 

[adamb1897]

Is using the one 295x2 card better than using the 2 SLI gtx 970s and would the one card be able to handle ultra settings unlike the 2 970s?

However, if I was to wait because I have time, how much better of a card do you think I would be getting?

Much better because you'll be able to gain more than 4GB of VRAM, then ultra settings is much more...accessible. Also the cards will use less power than the previous AMD cards. And actually you don't have to enable CFX on the 295x2 in most games because 1x 290x on it is enough for older games and some new ones. By older games I mean like Skyrim, Mass Effect Trilogy, Fable Anniversary, etc, you'll get constant 60 fps in those kind of games. By new games I mean like BF4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, FC4. The only game that I have encountered that absolutely needs CFX is Crysis 3. Also it will depend on the game, you may get like 35-60 fps (FC4), then you may get like 90-120 fps in BF4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Ok, then I will wait for the new card but are you sure that CFX will not be necessary because if the 390x is anything like the 295x it will require a better power supply and cost another $600 for the card, which I won't have for a while to spend on a computer.

 

[adamb1897]

As Lone said not all games can benefit from SLI you might want to look at the benchmarks for the games you want to play most and see what if any benefit they get from SLI especially at the highest res they were tested in. If it were me I'd go with best single card I could afford and then save up for a second one, that's what I did with my 770's. But if all the games you want to play do benefit greatly from SLI that you might just want to do that now, the benchmarks might help you decide which is best. There won't be any perfect solution unless you have an unlimited budget and can afford the fastest cpu and the fastest gpu.

Ok but my problem is that with the 295x2 if i wanted to use CFX then I would have to buy another psu as well because the system would then require over a 1200w and my psu is only going to have 850w so I need to make sure this 1 card is enough for a while. So what do you think I should do?

 

[-Lone-]

Is using the one 295x2 card better than using the 2 SLI gtx 970s and would the one card be able to handle ultra settings unlike the 2 970s?

However, if I was to wait because I have time, how much better of a card do you think I would be getting?

Much better because you'll be able to gain more than 4GB of VRAM, then ultra settings is much more...accessible. Also the cards will use less power than the previous AMD cards. And actually you don't have to enable CFX on the 295x2 in most games because 1x 290x on it is enough for older games and some new ones. By older games I mean like Skyrim, Mass Effect Trilogy, Fable Anniversary, etc, you'll get constant 60 fps in those kind of games. By new games I mean like BF4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, FC4. The only game that I have encountered that absolutely needs CFX is Crysis 3. Also it will depend on the game, you may get like 35-60 fps (FC4), then you may get like 90-120 fps in BF4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Ok, then I will wait for the new card but are you sure that CFX will not be necessary because if the 390x is anything like the 295x it will require a better power supply and cost another $600 for the card, which I won't have for a while to spend on a computer.

I have been playing my games for weeks or maybe 2 months without CFX, so 3/4 of my GPUs are actually inactive the entire time. The only game I use CFX in is Crysis 3, but after beating it once, there was no point of playing it without achievements to go for. So right now my CFX is offline 100% of the time, I have been using a single 290x the entire time because CFX is not needed or beneficial. I can run FC4 (Nvidia game) 4k@ultra at 35-60 fps, so around 45 most of the time, which is not bad for a AMD GPU in a Nvidia game at those settings. On the other hand, I can get up to 110 fps in Dragon Age: Inquisition or 100 fps in BF4 with my single 290x. Another reason why you should go with AMD is because of mantle, it really helps when it comes to a single GPU solution in AMD games that doesn't work so well with CFX. Which is why I have CFX off in Dragon Age, because CFX makes my game load extremely slow for whatever reason, so instead, I use a single 290x plus mantle and I can get a constant 60 fps or 110 fps if I disable v sync. Without mantle, I get like a max of 25 fps, so with one setting from AMD, you can quadruple your fps, Nvidia has no such features to boost performance by this much. If the 390x is like 50% better than the 290x like they say, then yes, I believe it is possible to play at 4k ultra with just one of them.

 

[-Lone-]

As Lone said not all games can benefit from SLI you might want to look at the benchmarks for the games you want to play most and see what if any benefit they get from SLI especially at the highest res they were tested in. If it were me I'd go with best single card I could afford and then save up for a second one, that's what I did with my 770's. But if all the games you want to play do benefit greatly from SLI that you might just want to do that now, the benchmarks might help you decide which is best. There won't be any perfect solution unless you have an unlimited budget and can afford the fastest cpu and the fastest gpu.

Ok but my problem is that with the 295x2 if i wanted to use CFX then I would have to buy another psu as well because the system would then require over a 1200w and my psu is only going to have 850w so I need to make sure this 1 card is enough for a while. So what do you think I should do?

Who told you 1200w is minimum, lol. 850w is enough if you don't OC or very little OC.

 

[bobs616]

The main reason I'm going with a 1000watt supply is I might triple SLI in the future, also the x99 platform used a bit more power, though my 850w is probably plenty but the other thing is sound level with the larger power supply it will let the funs run slow/off longer. The thing is unless you have plans to go bigger there is no real reason to get an overkill power supply, you'd be better off getting a better quality 850w than the one listed but larger not unless you're going x99. And if you did want to OC you'd probably again be better off with a higher quality single rail supply at the same wattage like one of the Seasonic gold units.

 

[adamb1897]

Is using the one 295x2 card better than using the 2 SLI gtx 970s and would the one card be able to handle ultra settings unlike the 2 970s?

However, if I was to wait because I have time, how much better of a card do you think I would be getting?

Much better because you'll be able to gain more than 4GB of VRAM, then ultra settings is much more...accessible. Also the cards will use less power than the previous AMD cards. And actually you don't have to enable CFX on the 295x2 in most games because 1x 290x on it is enough for older games and some new ones. By older games I mean like Skyrim, Mass Effect Trilogy, Fable Anniversary, etc, you'll get constant 60 fps in those kind of games. By new games I mean like BF4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, FC4. The only game that I have encountered that absolutely needs CFX is Crysis 3. Also it will depend on the game, you may get like 35-60 fps (FC4), then you may get like 90-120 fps in BF4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Ok, then I will wait for the new card but are you sure that CFX will not be necessary because if the 390x is anything like the 295x it will require a better power supply and cost another $600 for the card, which I won't have for a while to spend on a computer.

I have been playing my games for weeks or maybe 2 months without CFX, so 3/4 of my GPUs are actually inactive the entire time. The only game I use CFX in is Crysis 3, but after beating it once, there was no point of playing it without achievements to go for. So right now my CFX is offline 100% of the time, I have been using a single 290x the entire time because CFX is not needed or beneficial. I can run FC4 (Nvidia game) 4k@ultra at 35-60 fps, so around 45 most of the time, which is not bad for a AMD GPU in a Nvidia game at those settings. On the other hand, I can get up to 110 fps in Dragon Age: Inquisition or 100 fps in BF4 with my single 290x. Another reason why you should go with AMD is because of mantle, it really helps when it comes to a single GPU solution in AMD games that doesn't work so well with CFX. Which is why I have CFX off in Dragon Age, because CFX makes my game load extremely slow for whatever reason, so instead, I use a single 290x plus mantle and I can get a constant 60 fps or 110 fps if I disable v sync. Without mantle, I get like a max of 25 fps, so with one setting from AMD, you can quadruple your fps, Nvidia has no such features to boost performance by this much. If the 390x is like 50% better than the 290x like they say, then yes, I believe it is possible to play at 4k ultra with just one of them.

Ok then I will wait for the 390x.

 

[adamb1897]

As Lone said not all games can benefit from SLI you might want to look at the benchmarks for the games you want to play most and see what if any benefit they get from SLI especially at the highest res they were tested in. If it were me I'd go with best single card I could afford and then save up for a second one, that's what I did with my 770's. But if all the games you want to play do benefit greatly from SLI that you might just want to do that now, the benchmarks might help you decide which is best. There won't be any perfect solution unless you have an unlimited budget and can afford the fastest cpu and the fastest gpu.

Ok but my problem is that with the 295x2 if i wanted to use CFX then I would have to buy another psu as well because the system would then require over a 1200w and my psu is only going to have 850w so I need to make sure this 1 card is enough for a while. So what do you think I should do?

Who told you 1200w is minimum, lol. 850w is enough if you don't OC or very little OC.

I tried it on pc part picker and it said this:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Dcf8sY

 

[-Lone-]

That's because you have 2x 295x2 on it, that's 4 GPUs, that requires 1500-1600w.

 

[adamb1897]

The main reason I'm going with a 1000watt supply is I might triple SLI in the future, also the x99 platform used a bit more power, though my 850w is probably plenty but the other thing is sound level with the larger power supply it will let the funs run slow/off longer. The thing is unless you have plans to go bigger there is no real reason to get an overkill power supply, you'd be better off getting a better quality 850w than the one listed but larger not unless you're going x99. And if you did want to OC you'd probably again be better off with a higher quality single rail supply at the same wattage like one of the Seasonic gold units.

Not sure if PC part picker is correct but is says to CFX the 2 cards it would require 1211w of power.