Best Graphics Cards to SLI

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

schnmich

Honorable
Sep 18, 2013
5
0
10,510
I'm finishing up a gaming, multimedia rig and am considering buying two graphics cards to SLI. I was looking at the GeForce GTX 760's as they out perform a Titan when they are SLI'd.

Are they the most efficient to SLI?

My rig has a Intel i5 4k, Asus Maximus IV Formula, and G Skill Ripjaws 8GB.

Thanks in advance!
 
Solution
quilciri
I recommend the 670 over the 760. They are about the same price (price fluctuates on a daily basis, however!). The 670 is a faster card - Nvidia is going to re-release the 670 as the "760 Ti", and charge more for it, so I've been recommending people grab the remaining 670's that are around $250 while they can.

One or another 670 has gone on sale for $200 a few times in the last couple months. Keep your eyes on slickdeals & techbargains.
Sort by date Sort by votes
I recommend the 670 over the 760. They are about the same price (price fluctuates on a daily basis, however!). The 670 is a faster card - Nvidia is going to re-release the 670 as the "760 Ti", and charge more for it, so I've been recommending people grab the remaining 670's that are around $250 while they can.

One or another 670 has gone on sale for $200 a few times in the last couple months. Keep your eyes on slickdeals & techbargains.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
I would think if you're in a situation where you need SLIed 760s you want the 4gb version of them. Defiantly more efficient to SLI Nvidia cards over AMD ones as the radeon cards are more power hungry to begin with. I say go sli your 760s (4gb version) and enjoy playing anything you want on maxed settings until you get tired of using them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


4gb is uncessary unless you're playing at resolutions above 2560x1440. At 2560 or below, 2gb is plenty (as is a 256-bit bus).

I'm currently using a pair of 670's with a 1440p potalion monitor on the overlord OC circuitboard (monitor is running at 108hz). I like to have 90fps minimum even in very demanding games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're comparing apples and oranges here. System RAM usage is no indication of VRAM usage. BF4 uses that much system RAM in multiplayer maps, when you have full 64-player servers on the higher-destructibility maps. The CPU requires a lot more data in pre-fetch.

This has no correlation whatsoever to graphics workloads.

Even Crysis 3, which is capable of putting a load on the video card that 1. no other game out now can match, and 2. other games will still be catching up to 2 years from now, works well with 2gb VRAM at 2560 or under.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know the two aren't completely linked, point being in the past it seems to swing to lots of system memory, then swing back the other way It may never be necessary, but I never thought I'd see over 8gb get used by my system when I built my previous one 4 years ago with 4 gb... now I've had 9+gigs used on a few occasions (doing lots of other things while gaming) on my rig.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
VRAM increases have been almost completely linear, with no "jumps".

Much as I hate to admit it, the new console hardware is the largest indicator of what hardware we will need in the future. The release of the new consoles is not going to have a dramatic impact on PC video memory requirements. Both systems use pooled RAM, and in games such as BF4 as yoe mentioned (using the ps4 as an example), It's 8gb pool will be overwhelmingly used as system memory and not VRAM.

given that those are identical GPU architectures (in instruction sets and memory controllers) to the desktop cards, the actual video memory requirements won't be much different on PC.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom