Need to know which graphics card is required to run 2 34" 4k monitors

[mikeskey]

I am currently upgrading from an AMD Radeon R9 290 card and was thinking about either the RX 580 8gb (would have to wait a while for this one as they are sold out everywhere currently) or possibly a GTX 1070 or 1080. The rest of the computer specs are as follows. AMD FX 9590-8 core processor with 32g ram and an ROG motherboard. If for some reason it wouldn't be obvious I do plan on connecting the monitors via display port and not hdmi as the display port would allow for a 75hz refresh rate according to other reviews about the monitor on the site. The monitors I am going to be using are http://www.microcenter.com/product/474802/CZ340CK_34_Curved_UltraWide_QHD_IPS_LED_Display_Monitor

I forgot to mention I will only be gaming on one of these monitors, the other will only have my stock trading program up on it and I'm fairly certain that isn't extremely graphic intensive as I know for a fact it's processor intensive the more charts I have open at one time.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

i'd say you need a GTX 1080 at least for this monitor.
GTX 1070 is barely enough and even than i need to lower settings.

 

[rhysiam]

Additional screens really don't impact your FPS at all unless there's something extremely graphically demanding on them while you're gaming. You can look at the GPU load using GPU-Z or MSI Afterburner with no game running, just the trading program. That'll give you a sense. I suspect it will be only a couple of % at most... so basically irrelevant.

So in terms of gaming performance you can just look at 4K Benchmarks to get a sense of what you want. Even a 1080ti can't sustain 60fps with max details in many modern games, so it is a case of the better the GPU you buy, the higher the settings and frame rates you'll be able to run.
My only advice would be to make sure you don't get sucked into thinking that you need to run games on very high-ultra settings for a good experience. There's often settings that don't offer much visually but take a huge toll on GPU load. Also, if your budget is stretched, you can always drop the 4K to 1080P for a particularly demanding game. Obviously that's far from ideal, but it would allow you to run with much, much higher FPS and detail settings.

So yeah, obviously the more GPU horsepower the better. But all I'm saying is, some people will tell you "you need SLI 1080ti to run 4K". When what they actually mean is you need that to run most games at ultra/max settings locked at 60fps. If you're prepared to drop settings (which you should be), you can still have a good experience for far less money.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

^ if you look at the link, he is aiming at 3440x1440 monitor - it's 30% less pixels than 4K. so even GTX 1080 will do the job.
and SLI is bad for gaming.

 

[rhysiam]

^ if you look at the link, he is aiming at 3440x1440 monitor - it's 30% less pixels than 4K. so even GTX 1080 will do the job.
and SLI is bad for gaming.

Right you are. I took the 4K in the title as correct.

Totally agree about SLI, I was half expecting someone to come along with the "4K needs SLI 1080ti" line which gets bandied around far too often. Was just trying to preempt that.

A GTX does 1080 seem about right. Though I stand by what I said... even a 1440P ultrawide @ 75hz I think is sufficiently demanding that it'll legitimately benefit from as much single-GPU horsepower as you can throw at it right now. OP can decide whether a 1070, 1080 or 1080ti is the right choice for their needs and budget. But the better cards will enable higher frames and settings in demanding games. That's all I'm saying.

 

[mikeskey]

Additional screens really don't impact your FPS at all unless there's something extremely graphically demanding on them while you're gaming. You can look at the GPU load using GPU-Z or MSI Afterburner with no game running, just the trading program. That'll give you a sense. I suspect it will be only a couple of % at most... so basically irrelevant.

So in terms of gaming performance you can just look at 4K Benchmarks to get a sense of what you want. Even a 1080ti can't sustain 60fps with max details in many modern games, so it is a case of the better the GPU you buy, the higher the settings and frame rates you'll be able to run.
My only advice would be to make sure you don't get sucked into thinking that you need to run games on very high-ultra settings for a good experience. There's often settings that don't offer much visually but take a huge toll on GPU load. Also, if your budget is stretched, you can always drop the 4K to 1080P for a particularly demanding game. Obviously that's far from ideal, but it would allow you to run with much, much higher FPS and detail settings.

So yeah, obviously the more GPU horsepower the better. But all I'm saying is, some people will tell you "you need SLI 1080ti to run 4K". When what they actually mean is you need that to run most games at ultra/max settings locked at 60fps. If you're prepared to drop settings (which you should be), you can still have a good experience for far less money.

Thank you for the assistance. As n0ns3ns3 pointed out it's indeed not a 4k monitor. 2 of the sites I had looked at had it listed as a 4 k monitor in their searches however as I did a bit more research I found out that the 3440x1440 was in fact not a 4k resolution. I haven't looked into monitor specs for over 5 years now so I was a bit behind when I first posted this question. Again though thank you for the assistance, it is most appreciated.