GTX 1070 3 monitors

[AlexM197]

Hi, I will be buying the GPU to compliment my new CPU in January. I will be running the card on 3x 1080p monitors at 60hz. I was wondering if the 1070 will be sufficient to play AAA titles on ultra across the three monitors.

It's unlikely that I'll play all games on three monitors, but for games such as The Witcher and later Cyberpunk 2077 (whenever that is ready for release) this is something that will be important for me over the next 2-3 years.

Any advice will be much appreciated. Thanks

 

[Justinsanity]

I can't say for certain that you'll be able to max out all the games you want (like Witcher 3 and Arma 3) when using the 3 monitors at over 60 FPS at all times, but a single 1070 can definitely handle it very well.

 

[Karadjgne]

5760x1080 won't be a problem using nvidia surround. Having all settings at ultra max, including use of DSR or mxaa etc might be an issue in some games.

 

[Reaper_7799]

95% of games will be over 60 fps ultra, I sometimes run higher res surround but I tested witcher 3 at 1080P surround afew months back and if I recall, it was over 60-70 fps also...maybe not hairworks at ultra but for the most part it was ultra. I can retest witcher 3 with one 980ti and 1080P surround a little later if you want.

 

[AlexM197]

Thanks for your responses. That would be amazing, Reaper, if you wouldn't mind .

It would give me a good. Indication of its performance.

 

[Karadjgne]

If you have an older nvidia card, you could use that as a dedicated physX card which would relieve the pressure on the primary card and free up usable resources. This should allow for better functionality of things like hairworks in Witcher 3, as that's a physX function. You'd just need a psu capable of 2x cards, a 750w should be sufficient.

 

[Reaper_7799]

Thanks for your responses. That would be amazing, Reaper, if you wouldn't mind .

It would give me a good. Indication of its performance.

No problem, I'll do it within a couple hours and let you know for witcher3 so you can get an idea from there.

 

[AlexM197]

Karadjgne, That's something that I have thought about. I'm currently running a 970, which I wouldn't have thought would create too many performance drops if I were to use that as a physX card.


Thanks Reaper

 

[Karadjgne]

A 970 as dedicated physX would rock hairworks or other physX needs. Definitely capable of anything physX related as it won't be doing the normal gpu processing.

 

[Reaper_7799]

Karadjgne, That's something that I have thought about. I'm currently running a 970, which I wouldn't have thought would create too many performance drops if I were to use that as a physX card.


Thanks Reaper

Hmm okay, so I was way off. Sorry, I must have been thinking of Battlefield 4. It's around 40-45 with no hairworks, min probably 35 in novigrad and outside...one step down( High I think) was really about the same, maybe closer to 40fps min but definitely playable. I tested GTA5, that was around 60 ish in the city so out in the country probably 45 fps, all ultra for the most part but forget msaa, that was with fxaa. Sorry again.

1080 would be the better choice if you want ultra, for some reason I swear I did more tests at 1080p surround with one card but I guess I didn't.

 

[AlexM197]

Karadjgne, That's something that I have thought about. I'm currently running a 970, which I wouldn't have thought would create too many performance drops if I were to use that as a physX card.


Thanks Reaper

Hmm okay, so I was way off. Sorry, I must have been thinking of Battlefield 4. It's around 40-45 with no hairworks, min probably 35 in novigrad and outside...one step down( High I think) was really about the same, maybe closer to 40fps min but definitely playable. I tested GTA5, that was around 60 ish in the city so out in the country probably 45 fps, all ultra for the most part but forget msaa, that was with fxaa. Sorry again.

1080 would be the better choice if you want ultra, for some reason I swear I did more tests at 1080p surround with one card but I guess I didn't.

No need for apology; I know which GPU I should be targeting. I was struggling to justify the price of the 1080, because I hadn't read too many articles that suggested I would need it at 1920*1080. I think the 1080 will give me a year or two more than the 1070 at ultra on 3 monitors.


Thank you for checking that! Really appreciate it

 

[Reaper_7799]

Karadjgne, That's something that I have thought about. I'm currently running a 970, which I wouldn't have thought would create too many performance drops if I were to use that as a physX card.


Thanks Reaper

Hmm okay, so I was way off. Sorry, I must have been thinking of Battlefield 4. It's around 40-45 with no hairworks, min probably 35 in novigrad and outside...one step down( High I think) was really about the same, maybe closer to 40fps min but definitely playable. I tested GTA5, that was around 60 ish in the city so out in the country probably 45 fps, all ultra for the most part but forget msaa, that was with fxaa. Sorry again.

1080 would be the better choice if you want ultra, for some reason I swear I did more tests at 1080p surround with one card but I guess I didn't.

No need for apology; I know which GPU I should be targeting. I was struggling to justify the price of the 1080, because I hadn't read too many articles that suggested I would need it at 1920*1080. I think the 1080 will give me a year or two more than the 1070 at ultra on 3 monitors.


Thank you for checking that! Really appreciate it

You're welcome, no problem at all...Yeah the 1080 should get you a bit closer to that 60 mark for those tougher games. I cut my resolution down on 1440P surround, so it only renders main monitor and half of each of the side monitors (5120x1440P) to gain some fps, cause the outer edges of the side monitors get pretty warped. Hopefully this SMP starts to get implemented sometime soon in games, it would look really good without all the warping.