670 SLI and 5760x1080 3D gaming

[kohl]

I'm considering putting down the cash for a major display upgrade. Currently running x2 24" LCDs that do 1920x1200. The purpose is mainly for gaming; no Photoshop or publishing or anything of that nature. Not thrilled about giving up 1920x1200 but I understand the mainstream is moving to 1920x1080.

My current consideration is x3 Asus VG278H and x2 GTX 670. My questions are:

1. I understand these cards have DL-DVI, HDMI and display port connections. In order to enable 120Hz on all 3 monitors, my plan was to use 2 of the DL-DVI connections on 1 card and a DL-DVI connector on the other card. Will this work? Is there any reason to use HDMI vs. DVI?

2. I've been reading many reviews but can't seem to find a consensus on 2GB vs. 4GB VRAM at 3 monitor resolutions. All of the reviews seem to indicate that when you are powering 3 monitors and doing 3D, the extra VRAM would be helpful so for that reason I was eying up the EVGA 670 SC+ 4GB. I realize at that cost you are pretty much looking at the price of a GTX 690, but the 690 is essentially 2GB SLI unless I misunderstand how the VRAM is utilized. I am also not holding my breath on the GTX 690 being in stock anywhere.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Homer]

I run 6000x1080 (bezel corrected) with Tri Sli 680 classified's, and I can say for a fact that you do want 4gb of vram for running a large res in surround. I came off of dual 690's, and those pushed 6000x1080 3d like butter, but the vram was limiting, and they ran so damn hot I couldn't get any decent OC out of them even with the fans screaming.

Also, from my understanding, you can't push 120hz using HDMI, so you would be best off using DVI-D.

 

[CrazyRob]

1) Even though single GTX670's are surround view capable, when running in SLI, the drivers seem to require you to connect at least one monitor to the second card. So your idea of running all three monitors off the DVI-D connectors is correct.

2) The additional vram offered on 4gb cards seems to be less mandatory than I originally imagined. The theory behind it is sound, increased resolution and detail does use more vram. In my personal experience with my 2GB 680SLI in 3d @ 5960x1080, I haven't found a game where I've run out of vram. That's not to say that it's impossible, just what I've been playing (mainly Diablo 3, BF3, and a few others) don't do it. Granted, I don't turn on 16xaa, but in order to notice the benefits of high aa, I have to be sitting close enough to one screen that I can't see much of the others. Now, things may change in the future, but I don't buy into the future proofing idea, as things change unpredictably and it rarely works out the way you expect.

Seems like if you're the type of gamer that likes to try as many 3rd party mods as you can get your hands on (GTA IV, Skyrim, Stalker), 4GB is the right thing to do. If you're more inclined to play stock games, most of the time you shouldn't have any problems cranking it up with 2GB cards. But, just to contradict my summary, if you're going to spend $800 on a pair of video cards, you might as well spend the extra $140 for the extra 2GB of ram and that little peace of mind