Eyefinity vs Surround, And a new GPU?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
cindylo

cindylo

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2012
144
0
18,690
I have 2 questions for you guys(and girls) today. Number 1 I am looking to make a triple display setup. And I have heard conflicting stories about which technology is better and easier to use with the least problems. I know there is a not really a definitive answer for either side but I was wondering what the latest news about both was. Because the latest I can find on a comparison of the 2 is about a year or 2 ago and I know it has changed since then. Another question is For a triple setup(5760x1080) does memory interface matter much? I am looking to get a new card within the next week or 2 and I currently deciding between the GTX 660(maybe Ti) or the 7950. I am not exactly looking to max out games but play a few on all 3. And also I want to be able to play the newer games(1 monitor probably) without a problem as well. In the future I would like to SLI/CFX as well. I was kinda leaning toward AMD with the new games like BF4 and watchdogs being AMD optimized supposedly due to the consoles and future games being that way as well due to the new APU's in the consoles. But also I know AMD has issues with frame pacing and they recently came out with drivers to help even though its still worse than Nvidia with them. And they also don't work with CFX yet.
 
Eyefinity is probably a little better then surround in terms of accuracy and compatibility and all that stuff. But I don't think its a big difference. Your main choice needs to revolve around your GPU. Neither of those GPUs will play modern games at good settings on 3 monitors. The 7950 is better then the 660 and trades blows with the Ti. As for future CF/SLI, it really depends on how far away. AMD is fixing frame pacing, and for one screen it is basically fixed. It is a bit worse then nvidia for sure, its a beta driver and it doesn't work on eyefinity and DX9 and 10. AMD is going to fix all these things in future updates, so if the CF is going to be awhile away, AMD could be an option. But I'd wait. AMDs 9xxx series is just a couple months away. It is brand new and the 9870(replaces the 7950) should be a better option. Nvidia has the advantage of better stability on SLI. If you plan on SLIing soon, its a much better option. However it might be more expensive. The radeon also has the advantage of 3 free games, many of which are very good. As for AMD optimization, it's a bit more complicated. Nvidia usually releases drivers that negate AMDs partner advantage for games. The opposite is also true. The biggest advantage BF4 and other AMD sponsored games will have is CPU. This is because of massive hardware differences between AMD and Intel. I'm willing to bet BF4 will be fine on Nvidia cards, but that it will favor AMD CPUs over Intel. Initially it will favor AMD cards, but this will change. Wow this is long! Hope it helps :)
 
Great points guys! I didn't think about some of the things you all said. I know anything above the 7850/650 ti boost can run triple setup decently. I don't exactly want ultra settings on BF3 with it. But since there is video of the on youtube of a 7850 running 3 23" screens on tomb raider with the settings turned up for the most part. I know with stuff like that you have to take a grain of salt as well. Still since it was an unboxing video and such I do believe it. Like I said I will be getting it this month most likely and not waiting for the 9xxx series. But gaming on all 3 is not a priority I just want to get the right card for current and future uses. So you guys are saying go with AMD right? I am not planning to do SLI/CFX until probably next year or late this year.
 


At that point in time(late this year/early next year) the CF drivers will probably not be fixed for multiple displays. Its really tough to say what to do. As I said the 660Ti trades blows with the 7950. At the same price I might lean towards the 660Ti because of better SLI. The 7950 has 3 free games though. For single monitor I don't think there's too much of a question, I'd go 7950. For triple monitor its less clear.
 
You can look on youtube and see(did this last night) that the 7950 it about equal to a 660 Ti/760 on triple setups. There was a triple monitor review for the 760 and they used the 7950,660,660 Ti,670. And it passed up the 660 and the 660 Ti and was contending with the 670 and the 760. Also I do like the features of CUDA for just cause 2 and PhysX for planetside and such. So its a toss up because yea the GTX 660(Ti) can run a triple setup turned down some vs the 7950. But if you OC'd the 660 it would probably come closer to the 7950 as well. Not sure about CFX and SLI how that will come into play 4-6 months form now. It took AMD about a week to come out with 13.8 beta 2 for its frame pacing driver so not sure how long it will take for them to support eyefinity and CFX. I also have to take into account the fact my 3 monitors are all VGA. I am going to get 3 new ones after I get a new card hopefully but for now this is what I have. SO I also have to take into account adapters and those are not cheap anymore either.
 
Well if you OC the 660, you kinda have to compare to the OC 7950, which will once again favor the radeon. I say the 7950>=660Ti>660. However it took AMD a lot longer then a week for CF from pacing fix. They had promised it for a few months before.
 
Yea I know that is true. I was unaware it took a month. I just saw they came out with the beta 2 of the 13.8 frame pacing driver about a week after. Didn't know they promised it for a week. That is a big concern for me, Drivers. Because I know a lot of people hate AMD drivers and say they are terrible but have they improved any?
 


For single GPU AMD are perfect. But there are unresolved frame pacing issues with CF. I believe updates will come, but its a waiting game many don't have the luxury of playing. If you want best multi-GPU performance today then nvidia is the best.
 


It'll probably be sooner, bit still. I struggle to recommend nvidia for single card generally, but for multi card its much, much easier. 760s in SLI beat a titan and the 780. For SLI, that's what I'd be aiming for if possible.
 
Well for nvidia I will be aiming for a 660 or 660 Ti because I just can't muster the price of the 760 and the adapters I need. Also I don't see the point for a rebadged card anyway. Especially not when it has a whopping 10 fps on the 660 form the reviews I have read. I can OC it that much to save $50+
 


Well the 660Ti is fine then. Your OC point doesn't make too too much sense though, considering both cards OC.
 
Never mind on the OC point. I know they both do. I will probably just get a 660 and OC to match a 7950. Also another question. Will the memory interface of 192-bit hurt me using 2GB of vram with a triple setup? And also will the extra 1GB on the 7950(3GB) make much difference currently and in new games coming this fall/winter?
 


That is a good point that I forgot about. The extra memory does matter. Even 3Gb isn't much for 3 monitors, but 2Gb will be a problem for sure. 4Gb when you SLI will not be much either. When you SLI/CF 6Gb would be optimal. The amount of memory on the 660 will probably bottleneck at that resolution.
 
Don't worry about the memory interface. You are looking at spec's when the benchmark comparisons are all that matter, that and smoothness. If the benchmarks show them equal at 5760x1080, they are equal. You will also never run into issues with 2GB currently at that resolution with a single 2GB card. You won't be able to turn up AA high enough and get good FPS anyways. With it in SLI, then you may run into issues in EXTREMELY rare cases, but again, just turn down AA and it's fixed.

I've never seen a benchmark show 2GB not enough at 5760x1080, unless you consider less 30 FPS playable, or you are modifying a game.

Oddly, the Nvidia cards don't perform as well at 1440p and 1600p in comparison to AMD, but do well at 5760x1080 and 1080p. It doesn't make sense, but that is what the benchmarks show.
 
Yea I know with AA I will have problems. But also for the newer games that actually have support for eyefinity and surround, running those games at triple monitor resolutions I'm not really going to be needed AA much anyway. Because all the reviews I have watched and read when they use AA you can't really tell all that much. And you don't really go over 1.5GB-2GB(unless its crysis) or unless you crank up the AA. So the 3 vs 2gb wouldn't make a difference then.
 
Newer games will obviously use more though. Sure, most games won't bottleneck on a 4gb SLI/CF, but it is going to on the future. With a $400 combo of GPUs, I'd get something that can last awhile.
 
Indeed. It would be nice if CFX and SLI doubled memory but it doesn't stack it would still be 2gb and 2gb. Bu then again if you move a monitor to the other card so its 2 on one card and 1 on the other its less stress.
 


It does stack, otherwise it wouldn't work on single monitor setups.
 


Could you explain your thought further? That doesn't make any sense.

What most people talk about with SLI not stacking the VRAM, and they operate at what each individual card has, is due to the fact that SLI and Crossfire use the cards in AFR. AFR is Alternate Frame Rendering. What this means is that every other frame is rendered by different cards. That means that each card is responsible for rendering its own frame and as a result, must have all the same resources loaded into their VRAM, as a result, they do not behave as if they have stacked VRAM.
 
Actually you are wrong there my good sir. You can google it. CFX and SLI doesn't stack the ram so 1 GPU can access all of it. Its still 2GB per GPU. But like I said 2 monitors on 1 and 1 on the other card is less stress than all 3 on one card.
 
Sorry, not exactly what i meant, I believe I am wrong. What I meant was that the GPUs work together. They do not render alternate screens like suggested(1 card works 2 screens and one card works one). This isnt correct. 2 2gb cards in SLI/CF would operate similarly to a 4gb card because they render only half the amount of frames, using half the amount of memory each. For example if a game uses 2gb, each GPU will probably use around 1gb. I am correct right?
 


You got that backwards, sort of.

Because each GPU renders alternating frames, they each must have all the same data loaded into their VRAM. They need a full frame buffer, as they are rendering a complete image, no matter how many screens it is being delivered to. The cards do not share any data between them. In this case (99.9% of the time now), there is nothing the 2nd cards VRAM brings to the table in terms of what their VRAM can do.

Back in the day, there were other methods of SLI/Crossfire, where one card would render half the screen, and the other card would work on the other half. In this case, both cards still need all the same textures and what not loaded, but they only had to have half a frame buffer, as they only rendered half the screen. In this case, the 2nd cards VRAM adds a little benefit beyond what it does for its own screen, but not today, not with AFR.
 


But what about in the case of the radeon 7990 and 690 that have one unified memory pool?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom