Are there any 4K passive 3D monitors on the horizon?
1 / 2
Since my SLI 680s aren't going to be pushing much more than 1080p in 3D, I figure a 4k passive monitor might be the best 3D experience for me. I really like my VG248qe but when I make images pop out too much it does hurt my eyes a little. On my freinds passive LG, pop out doesn't hurt and creates a better 3D effect but the resolution loss sucks. 4K passive seems the best of both worlds but when I search I can't find any monitors that support it, just larger TVs.
Since my SLI 680s aren't going to be pushing much more than 1080p in 3D, I figure a 4k passive monitor might be the best 3D experience for me. I really like my VG248qe but when I make images pop out too much it does hurt my eyes a little. On my freinds passive LG, pop out doesn't hurt and creates a better 3D effect but the resolution loss sucks. 4K passive seems the best of both worlds but when I search I can't find any monitors that support it, just larger TVs.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
There's (I think) one 3dvision-supported passive monitor, all the rest are active. I'd really doubt this will happen. Then again, it's early days for 4k, and we've heard almost nothing about 4k/3d so far. Things will likely become a little more clear over the next few months.
There's (I think) one 3dvision-supported passive monitor, all the rest are active. I'd really doubt this will happen. Then again, it's early days for 4k, and we've heard almost nothing about 4k/3d so far. Things will likely become a little more clear over the next few months.
[quote="CeeJayII"]Since my SLI 680s aren't going to be pushing much more than 1080p in 3D, I figure a 4k passive monitor might be the best 3D experience for me.[/quote]
Eh? Your SLI 680's are barely pushing 1080p. You need like 3x more gpu performance for 4k.
CeeJayII said:Since my SLI 680s aren't going to be pushing much more than 1080p in 3D, I figure a 4k passive monitor might be the best 3D experience for me.
Eh? Your SLI 680's are barely pushing 1080p. You need like 3x more gpu performance for 4k.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Considering Vizio ditched 3D from their panels (and would have been a perfect candidate for their 999 4K set), I wouldn't hold my breath on it. And it seems like 4K sets are doing a ton of processing to the image, so even if they did have a 4K passive 3D model, input lag would probably suck for anything that required responsiveness anyways.
I'm getting the sinking feeling these things are aimed at movies. What's new? :(
Considering Vizio ditched 3D from their panels (and would have been a perfect candidate for their 999 4K set), I wouldn't hold my breath on it. And it seems like 4K sets are doing a ton of processing to the image, so even if they did have a 4K passive 3D model, input lag would probably suck for anything that required responsiveness anyways.
I'm getting the sinking feeling these things are aimed at movies. What's new? :(
eqzitara- Would I need to push 4k to end up with 1080p 3D on passive. I thought I would be able to set a game to 1080p and since the set would have the extra pixels to fill in the image, there wouldn't be a resolution drop as there is with current passive. When I do 1080p interlaced on my active 3Dtv, I don't have missing pixels.
eqzitara- Would I need to push 4k to end up with 1080p 3D on passive. I thought I would be able to set a game to 1080p and since the set would have the extra pixels to fill in the image, there wouldn't be a resolution drop as there is with current passive. When I do 1080p interlaced on my active 3Dtv, I don't have missing pixels.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
Passive is same performance as active as far as 3d vision.
Playing 1080p on a 4k display would look worse then 1080p on a 1080p display. Displays always look best at native resolution. If you switch to 720p on monitor it might look atrocious but it will look better on a native display.
"Seeing pixels" is really dependent on eye sight/display/how close you are to display. There are half as many pixels as in 1080p interlaced as normal. So you might not even see a notable difference depending on factors. 1080P interlanced is still 1/3rd more pixels then 720P.
Passive is same performance as active as far as 3d vision.
Playing 1080p on a 4k display would look worse then 1080p on a 1080p display. Displays always look best at native resolution. If you switch to 720p on monitor it might look atrocious but it will look better on a native display.
"Seeing pixels" is really dependent on eye sight/display/how close you are to display. There are half as many pixels as in 1080p interlaced as normal. So you might not even see a notable difference depending on factors. 1080P interlanced is still 1/3rd more pixels then 720P.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Just a small question:
I know that no1 yet knows about the Maxwell GTX 880 specs, however we do know that it will replace GK110 with GM100 and I read rumors about that it will have up to 8 GB of VDDR5 RAM and 6144 CUDA Cores (that is what, 2.5 times the GK110 cores).
So given that, [b]do you think it will be enough performance to power every game on 60+ FPS on a 3D 1440p 120GHz monitor[/b]? Yes the new one from Asus isn't 3D, but considering 1440p monitors have been around for quite awhile, I expect them this year to appear unless it's decided that 3D should simply be kept this way and not improved anymore since looks like nobody really is that interested. Why most people are throwing 3D away and saying it's bad I don't understand. 3D is one of them best technology, so if ur head hurts, watch 3D more and take aspirin!!!
Just a small question:
I know that no1 yet knows about the Maxwell GTX 880 specs, however we do know that it will replace GK110 with GM100 and I read rumors about that it will have up to 8 GB of VDDR5 RAM and 6144 CUDA Cores (that is what, 2.5 times the GK110 cores).
So given that, do you think it will be enough performance to power every game on 60+ FPS on a 3D 1440p 120GHz monitor? Yes the new one from Asus isn't 3D, but considering 1440p monitors have been around for quite awhile, I expect them this year to appear unless it's decided that 3D should simply be kept this way and not improved anymore since looks like nobody really is that interested. Why most people are throwing 3D away and saying it's bad I don't understand. 3D is one of them best technology, so if ur head hurts, watch 3D more and take aspirin!!!
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]If anyone were to answer that question, it would be a total guess. We don't know the specs or performance of the 880 yet.[/quote]
That's fine! Bring it on.
My guess is [b]yes it will be [/b]- Maxwell is just way ahead of Kepler, also, it's a matter of tweaking the game settings to get the best of it.
[quote="WhiteSkyMage"]Just a small question:
I know that no1 yet knows about the Maxwell GTX 880 specs, however we do know that it will replace GK110 with GM100 and I read rumors about that it will have up to 8 GB of VDDR5 RAM and 6144 CUDA Cores (that is what, 2.5 times the GK110 cores).
So given that, [b]do you think it will be enough performance to power every game on 60+ FPS on a 3D 1440p 120GHz monitor[/b]? Yes the new one from Asus isn't 3D, but considering 1440p monitors have been around for quite awhile, I expect them this year to appear unless it's decided that 3D should simply be kept this way and not improved anymore since looks like nobody really is that interested. Why most people are throwing 3D away and saying it's bad I don't understand. 3D is one of them best technology, so if ur head hurts, watch 3D more and take aspirin!!![/quote]Short answer: No.
Is Maxwell likely to make 2x delta in performance? 100% bump? None of the last two process changes did, so it doesn't seem likely here.
Here's the current best card in the world 780ti compared to 680:
[img]http://www.geforce.com/sites/default/files-world/attachments/geforce-gtx-780-ti-performance-chart.png[/img]
Note that the best card today cannot get to 60 fps on 'all' of the games today. And this is for a monitor at 2560x1600 about 4M pixels.
For 1440p: 2560x1440 in 3D, you are talking 7.3M pixels for a 60Hz frame. So not only do you need to get almost twice as many pixels as this graph, you also need to double the performance to get all the games over 60 fps.
Maybe if we ignore Black Flag we can still hit the 7.3M pixel requirement. Still seems unlikely to me.
The 2.5x number of cores is suggestive, but performance is very often more complicated than the pipeline. Some of these games may actually be PCI constrained or CPU bound or something unrelated to GPU.
It'll be a great bump, but will it meet your bar of all games at 1440p in 3D at 60 fps? Not likely.
WhiteSkyMage said:Just a small question:
I know that no1 yet knows about the Maxwell GTX 880 specs, however we do know that it will replace GK110 with GM100 and I read rumors about that it will have up to 8 GB of VDDR5 RAM and 6144 CUDA Cores (that is what, 2.5 times the GK110 cores).
So given that, do you think it will be enough performance to power every game on 60+ FPS on a 3D 1440p 120GHz monitor? Yes the new one from Asus isn't 3D, but considering 1440p monitors have been around for quite awhile, I expect them this year to appear unless it's decided that 3D should simply be kept this way and not improved anymore since looks like nobody really is that interested. Why most people are throwing 3D away and saying it's bad I don't understand. 3D is one of them best technology, so if ur head hurts, watch 3D more and take aspirin!!!
Short answer: No.
Is Maxwell likely to make 2x delta in performance? 100% bump? None of the last two process changes did, so it doesn't seem likely here.
Here's the current best card in the world 780ti compared to 680:
Note that the best card today cannot get to 60 fps on 'all' of the games today. And this is for a monitor at 2560x1600 about 4M pixels.
For 1440p: 2560x1440 in 3D, you are talking 7.3M pixels for a 60Hz frame. So not only do you need to get almost twice as many pixels as this graph, you also need to double the performance to get all the games over 60 fps.
Maybe if we ignore Black Flag we can still hit the 7.3M pixel requirement. Still seems unlikely to me.
The 2.5x number of cores is suggestive, but performance is very often more complicated than the pipeline. Some of these games may actually be PCI constrained or CPU bound or something unrelated to GPU.
It'll be a great bump, but will it meet your bar of all games at 1440p in 3D at 60 fps? Not likely.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
[quote="bo3b"]
Note that the best card today cannot get to 60 fps on 'all' of the games today. And this is for a monitor at 2560x1600 about 4M pixels.
For 1440p: 2560x1440 in 3D, you are talking 7.3M pixels for a 60Hz frame. So not only do you need to get almost twice as many pixels as this graph, you also need to double the performance to get all the games over 60 fps.
Maybe if we ignore Black Flag we can still hit the 7.3M pixel requirement. Still seems unlikely to me.
The 2.5x number of cores is suggestive, but performance is very often more complicated than the pipeline. Some of these games may actually be PCI constrained or CPU bound or something unrelated to GPU.
It'll be a great bump, but will it meet your bar of all games at 1440p in 3D at 60 fps? Not likely.[/quote]
Since you were talking about CPUs, you might have meant OCing them as well to help performance in some games which use CPU power more (that counts PhysX and TXAA)...Ivy-Bridge-E wasn't a good OCer, but again was 6-core...let's forget - that's just last generation... Haswell-E - if 8 cores/16 threats are not enough, then what can be?
Also, seeing that bump into the Nvidia's GPU graph, do you still think the performance won't be enough?
[img]http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2011-08/nvidia_kepler_maxwell_roadmap.jpg[/img]
I don't think 6144 cores will offer some rubbish performance over the GK110, surely it will be something beast - maybe I won't get to the 60FPS, but keep around the 30-50...Luckily with that G-Sync there everything would go smooth...
For a conclusion - you mean that this kind of performance only SLI cards can offer, is that right?
bo3b said:
Note that the best card today cannot get to 60 fps on 'all' of the games today. And this is for a monitor at 2560x1600 about 4M pixels.
For 1440p: 2560x1440 in 3D, you are talking 7.3M pixels for a 60Hz frame. So not only do you need to get almost twice as many pixels as this graph, you also need to double the performance to get all the games over 60 fps.
Maybe if we ignore Black Flag we can still hit the 7.3M pixel requirement. Still seems unlikely to me.
The 2.5x number of cores is suggestive, but performance is very often more complicated than the pipeline. Some of these games may actually be PCI constrained or CPU bound or something unrelated to GPU.
It'll be a great bump, but will it meet your bar of all games at 1440p in 3D at 60 fps? Not likely.
Since you were talking about CPUs, you might have meant OCing them as well to help performance in some games which use CPU power more (that counts PhysX and TXAA)...Ivy-Bridge-E wasn't a good OCer, but again was 6-core...let's forget - that's just last generation... Haswell-E - if 8 cores/16 threats are not enough, then what can be?
Also, seeing that bump into the Nvidia's GPU graph, do you still think the performance won't be enough?
I don't think 6144 cores will offer some rubbish performance over the GK110, surely it will be something beast - maybe I won't get to the 60FPS, but keep around the 30-50...Luckily with that G-Sync there everything would go smooth...
For a conclusion - you mean that this kind of performance only SLI cards can offer, is that right?
Please don't get me wrong, it will also likely be a great part. I just don't think that you are going to see a 2x improvement. I think we'd all like to see that, but chip development doesn't generally happen like that now.
The graph you show there- look at the left axis. That's GFlops per Watt. Not performance. All that says is that the Maxwell chips will be more power efficient. Could even be identical in performance, but if it uses less power you'd get that graph.
I personally don't really care about power consumption with parts, unless we are in a thermal throttling type situation, where they can't make them faster because of heat, just like Intel CPUs.
For 4 core/8 thread parts, this is all marketing. The vast majority of games are not multi-threaded at present. This is slowly changing, BattleField 4 is a good indication. But we have maybe a handful of games at present that can use multiple cores. Performance is the same as a single core chip for most games. So yes, single core CPU speed is still a big problem today.
Games are highly variable in what their performance bottleneck might be. And that bottleneck can change depending upon screen characteristics and things like running 3D. You can go from CPU throttled to GPU throttled with single changes like SSAA. So, I'd just say that performance is complicated, and you need to be clear about what you are measuring. This is also why Maxwell cannot possibly be a panacea for performance. Not all gaming situations are GPU bound.
For SLI- yes. If you want better than Maxwell performance today, you can almost certainly buy two cheaper cards and SLI (but of course we are so close it'd be better to wait to be sure). Just like the GTX 690 (or 680 SLI) is still faster than even the 780ti. One of my favorite graphs comparing GPU performance last 3 generations:
[img]http://international.download.nvidia.com/webassets/en_US/shared/images/products/shared/lineup.png[/img]
Please don't get me wrong, it will also likely be a great part. I just don't think that you are going to see a 2x improvement. I think we'd all like to see that, but chip development doesn't generally happen like that now.
The graph you show there- look at the left axis. That's GFlops per Watt. Not performance. All that says is that the Maxwell chips will be more power efficient. Could even be identical in performance, but if it uses less power you'd get that graph.
I personally don't really care about power consumption with parts, unless we are in a thermal throttling type situation, where they can't make them faster because of heat, just like Intel CPUs.
For 4 core/8 thread parts, this is all marketing. The vast majority of games are not multi-threaded at present. This is slowly changing, BattleField 4 is a good indication. But we have maybe a handful of games at present that can use multiple cores. Performance is the same as a single core chip for most games. So yes, single core CPU speed is still a big problem today.
Games are highly variable in what their performance bottleneck might be. And that bottleneck can change depending upon screen characteristics and things like running 3D. You can go from CPU throttled to GPU throttled with single changes like SSAA. So, I'd just say that performance is complicated, and you need to be clear about what you are measuring. This is also why Maxwell cannot possibly be a panacea for performance. Not all gaming situations are GPU bound.
For SLI- yes. If you want better than Maxwell performance today, you can almost certainly buy two cheaper cards and SLI (but of course we are so close it'd be better to wait to be sure). Just like the GTX 690 (or 680 SLI) is still faster than even the 780ti. One of my favorite graphs comparing GPU performance last 3 generations:
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Well, here is what I wanted to do - like everyone else I wanna see the real game the way it is originally developed with all textures, shades and best graphics. For that Nvidia has texture technologies. So when you want to combine everything - all those textures - and do it on a higher resolution (1440p and 4K) so that it looks sharp and nice, it requires more and more performance out of everything...Recently I was thinking to wait for G-Sync and get my 1080p 3D monitor - it will work with a single 780 Ti and a 6-core IVB-E and keep most high end games at around 40-50 FPS and others 60+ and 120+ FPS, also will do good job in video editing.
But as I see the 1440p monitors got improved for gaming - 120Hz, 1ms - and 4K monitors launched as well...So what's the point of getting 1080p 3D monitor when that kind of goes old when I can better resolution and experience on 3D (yes there are no monitors at this resolution yet, but until the end of the year when Haswell-E and Maxwell is out, surely there will be). I heard that Oculus rift are also going to release their VR display which will be 3D 1080p which is fine for a new device...
Well about the SLI - I never wanted 2-3 cards in SLI since I will not get x2 or x3 performance anyway - they will be hot which end in bad worse performance and bad OCing. So for an SLI, water cooling comes in and that's where it gets crazy expensive...Forgot to add that not all games support SLI. So without going SLI, i am just looking for a card which will give me the enough performance even if I have to OC both GPU and CPU. Also that 2 more cores is better.
Well, here is what I wanted to do - like everyone else I wanna see the real game the way it is originally developed with all textures, shades and best graphics. For that Nvidia has texture technologies. So when you want to combine everything - all those textures - and do it on a higher resolution (1440p and 4K) so that it looks sharp and nice, it requires more and more performance out of everything...Recently I was thinking to wait for G-Sync and get my 1080p 3D monitor - it will work with a single 780 Ti and a 6-core IVB-E and keep most high end games at around 40-50 FPS and others 60+ and 120+ FPS, also will do good job in video editing.
But as I see the 1440p monitors got improved for gaming - 120Hz, 1ms - and 4K monitors launched as well...So what's the point of getting 1080p 3D monitor when that kind of goes old when I can better resolution and experience on 3D (yes there are no monitors at this resolution yet, but until the end of the year when Haswell-E and Maxwell is out, surely there will be). I heard that Oculus rift are also going to release their VR display which will be 3D 1080p which is fine for a new device...
Well about the SLI - I never wanted 2-3 cards in SLI since I will not get x2 or x3 performance anyway - they will be hot which end in bad worse performance and bad OCing. So for an SLI, water cooling comes in and that's where it gets crazy expensive...Forgot to add that not all games support SLI. So without going SLI, i am just looking for a card which will give me the enough performance even if I have to OC both GPU and CPU. Also that 2 more cores is better.
99% of games support SLI, and in many cases you do get pretty close to 2x performance in 3d (but not in 2d), because each card renders for one eye. 3x SLI doesn't give any benefits over 2x for 3d though.
99% of games support SLI, and in many cases you do get pretty close to 2x performance in 3d (but not in 2d), because each card renders for one eye. 3x SLI doesn't give any benefits over 2x for 3d though.
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]99% of games support SLI, and in many cases you do get pretty close to 2x performance in 3d (but not in 2d), because each card renders for one eye. 3x SLI doesn't give any benefits over 2x for 3d though.[/quote]
Alright but again - I don't wanna mess with heat when it comes to air cooling those GPUs...Also I don't see the point of doing full watercooling loop if u are going to cool just 2 components...If I watercool those GPUs, heat will not be that big problem and probably get my 2x performance...
I am not to the point to do that now - not a very experienced enthusiast...
Pirateguybrush said:99% of games support SLI, and in many cases you do get pretty close to 2x performance in 3d (but not in 2d), because each card renders for one eye. 3x SLI doesn't give any benefits over 2x for 3d though.
Alright but again - I don't wanna mess with heat when it comes to air cooling those GPUs...Also I don't see the point of doing full watercooling loop if u are going to cool just 2 components...If I watercool those GPUs, heat will not be that big problem and probably get my 2x performance...
I am not to the point to do that now - not a very experienced enthusiast...
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
Eh? Your SLI 680's are barely pushing 1080p. You need like 3x more gpu performance for 4k.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I'm getting the sinking feeling these things are aimed at movies. What's new? :(
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
Playing 1080p on a 4k display would look worse then 1080p on a 1080p display. Displays always look best at native resolution. If you switch to 720p on monitor it might look atrocious but it will look better on a native display.
"Seeing pixels" is really dependent on eye sight/display/how close you are to display. There are half as many pixels as in 1080p interlaced as normal. So you might not even see a notable difference depending on factors. 1080P interlanced is still 1/3rd more pixels then 720P.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I know that no1 yet knows about the Maxwell GTX 880 specs, however we do know that it will replace GK110 with GM100 and I read rumors about that it will have up to 8 GB of VDDR5 RAM and 6144 CUDA Cores (that is what, 2.5 times the GK110 cores).
So given that, do you think it will be enough performance to power every game on 60+ FPS on a 3D 1440p 120GHz monitor? Yes the new one from Asus isn't 3D, but considering 1440p monitors have been around for quite awhile, I expect them this year to appear unless it's decided that 3D should simply be kept this way and not improved anymore since looks like nobody really is that interested. Why most people are throwing 3D away and saying it's bad I don't understand. 3D is one of them best technology, so if ur head hurts, watch 3D more and take aspirin!!!
That's fine! Bring it on.
My guess is yes it will be - Maxwell is just way ahead of Kepler, also, it's a matter of tweaking the game settings to get the best of it.
Is Maxwell likely to make 2x delta in performance? 100% bump? None of the last two process changes did, so it doesn't seem likely here.
Here's the current best card in the world 780ti compared to 680:
Note that the best card today cannot get to 60 fps on 'all' of the games today. And this is for a monitor at 2560x1600 about 4M pixels.
For 1440p: 2560x1440 in 3D, you are talking 7.3M pixels for a 60Hz frame. So not only do you need to get almost twice as many pixels as this graph, you also need to double the performance to get all the games over 60 fps.
Maybe if we ignore Black Flag we can still hit the 7.3M pixel requirement. Still seems unlikely to me.
The 2.5x number of cores is suggestive, but performance is very often more complicated than the pipeline. Some of these games may actually be PCI constrained or CPU bound or something unrelated to GPU.
It'll be a great bump, but will it meet your bar of all games at 1440p in 3D at 60 fps? Not likely.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Since you were talking about CPUs, you might have meant OCing them as well to help performance in some games which use CPU power more (that counts PhysX and TXAA)...Ivy-Bridge-E wasn't a good OCer, but again was 6-core...let's forget - that's just last generation... Haswell-E - if 8 cores/16 threats are not enough, then what can be?
Also, seeing that bump into the Nvidia's GPU graph, do you still think the performance won't be enough?
I don't think 6144 cores will offer some rubbish performance over the GK110, surely it will be something beast - maybe I won't get to the 60FPS, but keep around the 30-50...Luckily with that G-Sync there everything would go smooth...
For a conclusion - you mean that this kind of performance only SLI cards can offer, is that right?
The graph you show there- look at the left axis. That's GFlops per Watt. Not performance. All that says is that the Maxwell chips will be more power efficient. Could even be identical in performance, but if it uses less power you'd get that graph.
I personally don't really care about power consumption with parts, unless we are in a thermal throttling type situation, where they can't make them faster because of heat, just like Intel CPUs.
For 4 core/8 thread parts, this is all marketing. The vast majority of games are not multi-threaded at present. This is slowly changing, BattleField 4 is a good indication. But we have maybe a handful of games at present that can use multiple cores. Performance is the same as a single core chip for most games. So yes, single core CPU speed is still a big problem today.
Games are highly variable in what their performance bottleneck might be. And that bottleneck can change depending upon screen characteristics and things like running 3D. You can go from CPU throttled to GPU throttled with single changes like SSAA. So, I'd just say that performance is complicated, and you need to be clear about what you are measuring. This is also why Maxwell cannot possibly be a panacea for performance. Not all gaming situations are GPU bound.
For SLI- yes. If you want better than Maxwell performance today, you can almost certainly buy two cheaper cards and SLI (but of course we are so close it'd be better to wait to be sure). Just like the GTX 690 (or 680 SLI) is still faster than even the 780ti. One of my favorite graphs comparing GPU performance last 3 generations:
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
But as I see the 1440p monitors got improved for gaming - 120Hz, 1ms - and 4K monitors launched as well...So what's the point of getting 1080p 3D monitor when that kind of goes old when I can better resolution and experience on 3D (yes there are no monitors at this resolution yet, but until the end of the year when Haswell-E and Maxwell is out, surely there will be). I heard that Oculus rift are also going to release their VR display which will be 3D 1080p which is fine for a new device...
Well about the SLI - I never wanted 2-3 cards in SLI since I will not get x2 or x3 performance anyway - they will be hot which end in bad worse performance and bad OCing. So for an SLI, water cooling comes in and that's where it gets crazy expensive...Forgot to add that not all games support SLI. So without going SLI, i am just looking for a card which will give me the enough performance even if I have to OC both GPU and CPU. Also that 2 more cores is better.
Alright but again - I don't wanna mess with heat when it comes to air cooling those GPUs...Also I don't see the point of doing full watercooling loop if u are going to cool just 2 components...If I watercool those GPUs, heat will not be that big problem and probably get my 2x performance...
I am not to the point to do that now - not a very experienced enthusiast...