SLI 970's at 3440x1440p - performance?

[Buckeye]

I'm currently running a single Gigabyte R9 280x on a 2560x1080p (Asus MX299Q) monitor; however, I am looking at upgrading to SLI Gigabyte GTX 970's to drive a 3440x1440p ( Dell U3415W) monitor.

 

Before I pull the trigger, I have a few noobish questions:

 

1) Is SLI a pain in the butt to run on DCS? I feel like I've read that it is, but, I've never paid real attention to it as I never had intentions on running dual cards.

 

2) Can I expect reasonable frames with this hardware at this resolution?

 

Thanks!

Edited December 2, 2014 by =Buckeye=

[PureEvil]

wait for EDGE. atm intel and nvidia run DCS better than AMD/Radeon.

[Tricky11]

I would not bother with SLi mate. Why not get one gtx 980 instead?

Thats what i am running on my LG 3440x1440 and it runs it fine with everything on max..

[Buckeye]

I would not bother with SLi mate. Why not get one gtx 980 instead?

Thats what i am running on my LG 3440x1440 and it runs it fine with everything on max..

 

 

Because SLI 970s are much more powerful and pretty much the same cost according to all benchmarking.

[Tricky11]

But SLi is dont work well with ALL games and sims. It maybe ok if you are only flying DCS. It isjust i have always found the SLi is more trouble than it is worth to be honest. I used to mess with it but i found myself tweaking things more than playing the sim. Just my opinion..

Cheers

[Demon_]

Is SLI a pain for DCS? No.

Your R9 280x is the equivalent of my gtx680, why not purchase another Amd card for now? Much less expensive...

 

SLI Gtx680: I have steady 60fps at 5760x1080 or 3240x1920. Not everything on max.

Note: 2g of Vram is not enough at those resolutions.

 

2) Can I expect reasonable frames with this hardware (SLI Gtx970) at this resolution? Yes!

 

Good luck.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Demon_

[xaoslaad]

I have SLI 970's and a 4k monitor. You can run pretty decent at medium-ish resolutions. Don't expect to crank everything up; at four times the pixels and only twice the horsepower you're deficient compared to someone with 1920x1080 and one 970.

 

My settings are down the left:

HIGH

HIGH

OFF

HIGH

HIGH

ON

HIGH

3820x2160

1.7777777777778

1 Screen

512 Every Frame

OFF

OFF

 

down the right:

0

9000

150000

 

Disable Aero Interface

Full Screen

Cockpit Shadows

Auto Detect Oculus Rift

 

and Mirrors on in Misc.

 

I get reasonable frame rates most of the time ( as in >30 most of the time)

 

Everything is smooth to my (admittedly terrible) eyes.

 

If you don't have a 4k monitor yet consider Windows 8.1 if you don't have it already. I have heard with Windows 7 you have to play with icon and font sizes, whereas in Windows 8.1 I didn't have to touch any of that; much better scaling, which from reading is something it does a lot better than its predecessors.

[Buckeye]

But SLi is dont work well with ALL games and sims. It maybe ok if you are only flying DCS. It isjust i have always found the SLi is more trouble than it is worth to be honest. I used to mess with it but i found myself tweaking things more than playing the sim. Just my opinion..

Cheers

 

I only play DCS and Battlefield 4, so I should be okay. Anything else that I would play in the future would be a new release, would be be optimized well enough.

 

What types of tweaking need to be done using SLI? It is not just install and go (I honestly have no idea)?

 

Is SLI a pain for DCS? No.

Your R9 280x is the equivalent of my gtx680, why not purchase another Amd card for now? Much less expensive...

 

SLI Gtx680: I have steady 60fps at 5760x1080 or 3240x1920. Not everything on max.

Note: 2g of Vram is not enough at those resolutions.

 

2) Can I expect reasonable frames with this hardware (SLI Gtx970) at this resolution? Yes!

 

Good luck.

 

Today I decided I'm actually just going to rebuild my entire rig and sell my current one. I've got 12 days of vacation scheduled around Christmas/New Years, so until then I am just going to hunt for deals. I am going to switch over to Intel from AMD. Today I have picked up:

 

- Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor

- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way SLI)

- G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory

 

I will reuse my SSD/HDD storage drives, case fans, CPU cooler (HyperEvo 212), etc. and replace everything else...like my motherboard, case, etc. I'll go ahead sell my current hardware while it still has some resale value. Doubling down on my R9 280x doesn't really solve my problem of having a mediocre card, it just compounds it.

[Buckeye]

I have SLI 970's and a 4k monitor. You can run pretty decent at medium-ish resolutions. Don't expect to crank everything up; at four times the pixels and only twice the horsepower you're deficient compared to someone with 1920x1080 and one 970.

 

My settings are down the left:

HIGH

HIGH

OFF

HIGH

HIGH

ON

HIGH

3820x2160

1.7777777777778

1 Screen

512 Every Frame

OFF

OFF

 

down the right:

0

9000

150000

 

Disable Aero Interface

Full Screen

Cockpit Shadows

Auto Detect Oculus Rift

 

and Mirrors on in Misc.

 

I get reasonable frame rates most of the time ( as in >30 most of the time)

 

Everything is smooth to my (admittedly terrible) eyes.

 

If you don't have a 4k monitor yet consider Windows 8.1 if you don't have it already. I have heard with Windows 7 you have to play with icon and font sizes, whereas in Windows 8.1 I didn't have to touch any of that; much better scaling, which from reading is something it does a lot better than its predecessors.

 

Thanks for the response, dude! I do have Windows 8.1 Pro already so at least I'm all set there. Also, note that I'm not moving to 4K resolution....just to 3440x1440 :thumbup:

 

See my post right above this one, I went ahead and got the Gigabyte G1 970s and switched over to an i7-4790K today. The Gigabyte G1 970 owns in benchmarks and OCs the best, and I will overclock the i7 too, so hopefully that'll help me to get FPS above 50 with everything at "High", mirrors on, etc. in DCS at 3440x1440. If it doesn't, I really don't understand what the hell type of super system DCS would require to run efficiently.

[PureEvil]

I only play DCS and Battlefield 4

- Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor

 

i5 4690k is 90$ cheaper (on newegg) and can be overclocked to the same speed as 4790k, if your pc is just for gaming.

Edited December 3, 2014 by PureEvil

[Buckeye]

i5 4690k is 90$ cheaper (on newegg) and can be overclocked to the same speed as 4790k, if your pc is just for gaming.

 

I only paid $250 + tax for the i7 at MicroCenter and I'd rather have it to be covered in terms of speed for quite a while, but thank you for the heads up man! Appreciate you looking out for me!

[Tricky11]

Will your PSU support 2 cards ok? That is something else to look at.

[Buckeye]

Will your PSU support 2 cards ok? That is something else to look at.

 

I've got a Corsair CX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply, according to PCPartsPicker, my rig will need 517W. Should be good to go! :thumbup:

[Buckeye]

i5 4690k is 90$ cheaper (on newegg) and can be overclocked to the same speed as 4790k, if your pc is just for gaming.

 

I owe you big, despite my post above, upon second thought I went ahead and contacted Micro Center to ask what pricing they had on the i5 4690k and I was able to get it for $180 + tax, or $90 less than I paid for the i7. Thank man! :thumbup:

[BitMaster]

Why don't you go higher than 8GB ??

 

There are many reasons to do so, one would be that any recent SSD tested performs a lot better with 16 GB than compared to 4 or 8 or even 12 GB ( review somewhere on tom's hardware page ).

 

I also ran into trouble playing SP/Offline which I almost never do but sometimes I wanna test a mission before going online etc.. and 6GB BSD'ed the PC, with 8 GB it seems to run stable FOR NOW but as EDGE and new modules and maps come, I could see a demand for 12 or 16 GB.

 

Also your Windows will run better, not much, but as a power user you will see a difference.

 

 

But no big deal, you can always add another 2x4GB modules, just try to get the same model.

 

If you can take them back, it's easier to OC with 2 modules than with 4, so having 2 x 8GB is better than 4 x 4GB in the end, also less energy/heat with less modules.

 

 

Bit

[Buckeye]

SLI 970's at 3440x1440p - performance?

 

Will your PSU support 2 cards ok? That is something else to look at.

 

 

I upgraded to an EVGA SuperNOVA 850W Gold+ G2 220 last night just to be safe.

[xaoslaad]

Shouldn't have been necessary. I have a 700 I think and it's perfectly fine with two. I think they suggest 650 to 750 for 2. A 750 was fine. Also, yes I misread your resolution, so you stand to get better frame rates than I do, so cool.

[Buckeye]

SLI 970's at 3440x1440p - performance?

 

Why don't you go higher than 8GB ??

 

There are many reasons to do so, one would be that any recent SSD tested performs a lot better with 16 GB than compared to 4 or 8 or even 12 GB ( review somewhere on tom's hardware page ).

 

I also ran into trouble playing SP/Offline which I almost never do but sometimes I wanna test a mission before going online etc.. and 6GB BSD'ed the PC, with 8 GB it seems to run stable FOR NOW but as EDGE and new modules and maps come, I could see a demand for 12 or 16 GB.

 

Also your Windows will run better, not much, but as a power user you will see a difference.

 

 

But no big deal, you can always add another 2x4GB modules, just try to get the same model.

 

If you can take them back, it's easier to OC with 2 modules than with 4, so having 2 x 8GB is better than 4 x 4GB in the end, also less energy/heat with less modules.

 

 

Bit

 

 

Switching to two 8GB sticks for the 1866 RAM I picked up will cost me $100 more, but I went ahead and grabbed an extra 2 4GB sticks.

 

I had read over and over 16GB was overkill unless I'd be doing editing, but with DCS, who the hell really knows haha...it might be the one game that actually benefits from 16GB.

 

Shouldn't have been necessary. I have a 700 I think and it's perfectly fine with two. I think they suggest 650 to 750 for 2. A 750 was fine. Also, yes I misread your resolution, so you stand to get better frame rates than I do, so cool.

 

 

Yeah it was only a Bronze+ though and I'd hate to fry an extremely expensive system by cheaping out on the PSU. I upgraded it just to be safe more than anything.

[Buckeye]

SLI 970's at 3440x1440p - performance?

 

Everything is purchased, besides the monitor (it isn't released yet). Build is as follows:

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jyRRHx

 

That shows my current monitor, here is the new monitor:

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/dell-to-offer-a-curved-34-inch-u3415w-display.html

[Tricky11]

Everything is purchased, besides the monitor (it isn't released yet). Build is as follows:

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jyRRHx

 

That shows my current monitor, here is the new monitor:

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/dell-to-offer-a-curved-34-inch-u3415w-display.html

 

I got that monitors competitor and it is ok but i am kind of wishing i either went for triple 27" monitors or a single 4k 55" TV now. :doh:

[Buckeye]

I got that monitors competitor and it is ok but i am kind of wishing i either went for triple 27" monitors or a single 4k 55" TV now. :doh:

 

I hear ya, I personally can't deal with bezels and I can't imagine gaming on my TV...even though it would look retarded sitting on my desk, I considered it for a while, but monitors have such a better picture quality and overall just feel "better" to me sitting at my desk for gaming.

[Fri13]

Switching to two 8GB sticks for the 1866 RAM I picked up will cost me $100 more, but I went ahead and grabbed an extra 2 4GB sticks.

 

I had read over and over 16GB was overkill unless I'd be doing editing, but with DCS, who the hell really knows haha...it might be the one game that actually benefits from 16GB.

 

 

 

 

Yeah it was only a Bronze+ though and I'd hate to fry an extremely expensive system by cheaping out on the PSU. I upgraded it just to be safe more than anything.

As long the DCS is 32bit, it can't request from OS to allocate more than 2GB if RAM. If DCS is compiled to be aware of "Large Address Space" it can use (and request) 3.2GB. The rest 800MB goes to rest of the full 4GB.

 

But once DCS is 64bit, it can request over that as much OS can allocate for it.

 

The benefits using more RAM than 4GB (even with 32bit architecture) is to have possibility to run multiple 32bit processes and allocate them max memory (32bit CPU needs to support PAE extension).

 

The benefit is as well that OS can use RAM as disk cache so each process gets <4GB and OS has 4GB for disk cache etc.

Throw there a 64bit system and disk cache is so big that its easy to use all unused space as disk cache.

[cichlidfan]

As long the DCS is 32bit, it can't request from OS to allocate more than 2GB if RAM. If DCS is compiled to be aware of "Large Address Space" it can use (and request) 3.2GB. The rest 800MB goes to rest of the full 4GB.

 

But once DCS is 64bit, it can request over that as much OS can allocate for it.

 

DCS has been a 64bit application for approximately a year now, IIRC.

[Fri13]

DCS has been a 64bit application for approximately a year now, IIRC.

Ah... Totally forgot the 32bit support was dropped....

[Buckeye]

Final rig below, everything is now purchased (sans the new monitor that isn't released yet) and most of it is delivered. I will be doing the build on December 26th.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/N8tdgs