A Rig To Run 1.492 Billion Pixels Per Second (3*4K displays) ?

MattNo5ss said:

The OP says pixels per second at 60Hz, so that's 3 x (3840 x 2160) x 60 = 1,492,992,000 pixels per second. So, he's asking about 60 FPS @ 3*4K...Thought I'd clear that up

Click to expand...

Thanks for answering this while I was away!
Yes, it is pixels per second on 3 4K monitors at 60hz, not number of pixels in the total display area.
I would really ENJOY ~1.5bn pixels total display area, but as one of the consensus groups says in regards to this idea, it's not quite possible yet.

However, to all those in the other group of consensus who've said "it's possible, but pricey!"
I'm pretty sure I'm with you on this. It does indeed seem possible, and definitely depends muchly on the levels of detail--thanks for that insight.

Currently, I think the way to attempt this without busting any budget I'd care to put towards this, would be to attempt with three R9 290's, or perhaps 295X's if I can get them at an appropriately bargain price.
The main reason for this is if it doesn't work, then the hardware can instead be evenly distributed to some other computers I maintain.

As I say I want this for some older filght simulators; for more screen real estate and thus better immersion.

The critical thing is that each monitor run at 60Hz. This requires use of DisplayPort. There seems no way around that until 4K monitors with HDMI 1.4 or 2.0 input interfaces are more available.
I have already tried a setup wtih 2 4K monitors running at 60Hz/30Hz (migraine-inducing territory), and 30Hz/30Hz (too frustratingly jaggy).

So I hope this will be the way to go until sometime next year, at which time there will doubtless be a better way... in the meantime I'm going to go forward with this and see what I can come up with.

4k makes plenty of sense for gaming. I like my UP2414Q, but for anything with more rendering work to do than Day of Defeat, low FPS is annoying. I don't think there's any card with nearly enough RAM (let alone processing power) to support triple screens, though. I refuse to acknowledge any claims that turning off AA/AF is even possible

petteyg359 said:

I refuse to acknowledge any claims that turning off AA/AF is even possible

Click to expand...

LMAO but it IS possible

Hi everyone,

For those staying tuned, I'd like to report on what's been happening.

I can attest to mixed success and failure, so this is still very much a work in progress.

To achieve the multiple-monitor 12K@60Hz outputs, I've built a machine to the following specifications:

• Corsair RM-850 PSU
• ASUS Crossfire V Formula-Z motherboard
• AMD FX-9370 CPU
• G-Skill 16GB PC2400Mhz RAM
• 3*Samsung U28D590D 4K monitors
• 3*Gigabyte R9-290C-4GD GPUs

I am using NZXT closed-loop liquid coolers (Kraken X60 & X30 series) throughout the Corsair Graphite case, for the CPU and GPUs.

For storage I am using four Samsung 120GB SATA SSD's running in RAID0. Needless to say, this machine runs blisteringly fast.

Unfortunately this is where the problems kicked in, as I'd dared to hope they wouldn't.

Firstly one of the 290's was faulty, and had to be returned. Luckily while still testing the build I hadn't replaced the Windforce cooler with the Kraken X31!

This was the end of the hardware woes, and with all three 290's functioning, and placed appropriately in the case to draw enough air with PCI extenders, the hardware was sound.
Upon installing Catalyst and DISABLING Crossfire, windows recognised all three monitors and is able to extend the desktop to both secondary monitors at 60Hz.

To clarify, yes, you can use the DisplayPort outputs on multiple cards to get multiple 4K desktops at 60Hz. That works beautifully! If you want to play games which can utilise multiple monitors while running in extended desktop mode, that's great! You can avoid purchasing more expensive hardware or using DP-splitter boxes that way if you like.

Sadly, Eyefinity does NOT support this. You CANNOT create an Eyefinity display group with this setup.

So, was there a point to all this? I'd say there was, kind of.
The point was discovering this for myself, because nobody I had access to could tell me conclusively whether this would work.
Let's leave it at "Works for Windows, but not for games".

Where does the project go from here?
Well... that's the interesting part. I suppose generally what I was avoiding was purchasing an R9-295x2, which run to about $1,300-$2,000 from retailers I can use.

But it looks like this machine needs one... so that's what's going in next.
Soon, this build will become a quad-Crossfire (Quadfire) rig, with one R9-295x2 and three R9-290's, driving three UHD displays, and probably more memory as well.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Not sure the las part.is possible either... 5 gpus with one in crossfire. Not to mention, you really nneded to go Intel to push those cards properly.

EarthDog said:

Not sure the las part.is possible either... 5 gpus with one in crossfire. Not to mention, you really nneded to go Intel to push those cards properly.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake!
That last ought to read: quad-Crossfire, with one R9-295X and TWO R9-290's (not three).
The third 290 is now slated for another system, which will benefit greatly from the upgrade.

This build has been a good learning experience so far.
I'm happy with the results, if not the frustrations.

First, I threw up in my mouth when I saw an AMD CPU and those amazing GPU's!...You need an quad i5 at the min for this.

Second, I havn't used eyefinity in a while, but when you crossfire them and use eyefinity, doesn't one card output to all the monitors? Or has this changed? (it's been two years since I messed with eyefinity and multiple monitors)

Keep pluggin away and pushing the envelope!

attack said:

First, I threw up in my mouth when I saw an AMD CPU and those amazing GPU's!...You need an quad i5 at the min for this.

Second, I havn't used eyefinity in a while, but when you crossfire them and use eyefinity, doesn't one card output to all the monitors? Or has this changed? (it's been two years since I messed with eyefinity and multiple monitors)

Keep pluggin away and pushing the envelope!

Click to expand...

Last I checked the 9370 pulls even with an i5... not sure why that's vomit inducing.

Also, he has Crossfire disabled unless I'm missing something.

He disabled crossfire and then saw the 3 monitors...I don't know...like I said I'm more asking...I remember when corssfire and eyefinity came out it required everything to be run out of one card.

The i5 is better then the 9370, other than a 3d mark test.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_5.html#sect0
So yes, i5 at MIN, really should go i7 for this type of build.

attack said:

He disabled crossfire and then saw the 3 monitors...I don't know...like I said I'm more asking...I remember when corssfire and eyefinity came out it required everything to be run out of one card.

The i5 is better then the 9370, other than a 3d mark test.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_5.html#sect0
So yes, i5 at MIN, really should go i7 for this type of build.

Click to expand...

Mostly for productivity, not gaming.

The extra cores and multitasking go hand-in-hand

qwiddity said:

Sorry, my mistake!
That last ought to read: quad-Crossfire, with one R9-295X and TWO R9-290's (not three).
The third 290 is now slated for another system, which will benefit greatly from the upgrade.

This build has been a good learning experience so far.
I'm happy with the results, if not the frustrations.

Click to expand...

You know 295 is 2X 290X not 290, right? I'm not sure those cards will even talk to eachother. Have you set up CF already? Did it work?

BTW as others have said, for a setup like this, for all the cards to get max bandwidth, you should really be on X99 and a board like the X99-E WS from ASUS, which has 2 PLX chips for 16/16/16/16 link.

Otherwise, you should be looking at socket 1150 and an i7, also with a PLX chip for 8/8/8/8. Or in your case, 16/8/8.

That 295X2 really ought to have a 16X 3.0 link.

Not that it'll make a MASSIVE difference, but AMD FX CPUs and the boards they run on only support PCIE 2.0, while all Intel offerings are 3.0. This further reduces your bandwidth to your cards. Again, not a huge deal with current cards. You're sacrificing maybe 1.5-2 frames per second.

You can crossfire a 295x2 and a 290x.

EarthDog said:

You can crossfire a 295x2 and a 290x.

Click to expand...

I know that. He said he got 2x 290 though, not 290X. Just concerned he can't CFX now...

Spot on.. I don't think it's possible with the mix and match.

EarthDog said:

Spot on.. I don't think it's possible with the mix and match.

Click to expand...

You can Crossfire the 290 and 290X, why not a 290 with a 295X2?

Cause its two 290x and a 290? No idea.

Sorry, I was wrong:

Do the higher cards still underclock to the lower card when different models are in CF? If so, the 290s might help keep the 295x2 away from meltdown temperatures

ATMINSIDE said:

Sorry, I was wrong:

Click to expand...

Wrong about what? A 7970 and 7950 go in CF just fine, which are pretty much a 280 and 280x. I don't see why a 295x2 and some 290s would be any different unless somebody who owns such a combo confirms that they don't...

petteyg359 said:

Do the higher cards still underclock to the lower card when different models are in CF? If so, the 290s might help keep the 295x2 away from meltdown temperatures

Click to expand...

ATMINSIDE said:

Sorry, I was wrong:

Click to expand...

Again, different cards clearly have worked in CF in the past, and I doubt the R9s are any different. Somebody who actually has two cards of different models can come in and state that it doesn't work, but until they do, that graph is meaningless for any purpose other than determining whether a bridge is needed.