Is mean of 1440p FPS and 4K FPS good indicator of 3x1080p FPS?

[teetar]

Title says my biggest question, but I have a general "what GPU setup is best for me?" question as well.

I'm running a triple monitor gaming setup and would like to play games triple wide (w/ NVIDIA Surround). Unfortunately most benchmarks follow a standard of 1080p, 1440p (2x1080p) and 4K (4x1080p). Would the mean of GPU FPS at 1440p and 4K be a good indicator of GPU FPS at 3x1080p?

For example, guru3d's 1070 review shows it to have 85 FPS @ 1440p and 46 FPS @ 4K. Would it be reasonable to assume I would get around 65 FPS @ 3x1080p? I assume there's not a linear relationship between GPU FPS and resolution, so could I also assume actual FPS would be slightly higher than this?

Does anyone here have a triple monitor setup and a 10 series card(s)? I'd love to hear how they're performing for others at the same resolution as me.

Also, if I'm looking for the best setup for the least amount of money to get ~60 FPS @ high settings gaming across all three of my 1080p monitors. I like the look of 10 series cards because of their anti-stretching feature shown during the NVIDIA reveal, but would I get better performance/price (while still hitting ~60 FPS) with something else?

Sorry for the long-winded post, but thanks for any responses!

 

[ATMINSIDE]

You'll be closer to 1440p than 4K.

I'm running 3x1080p on a 980Ti, will be upgrading to a 1080 relatively soon.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

It is all about the pixels.

1920 X 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

X 3 (for your three monitors) = 6,220,800 pixels for your set up.

2560 X 1440 = 3,686,400 pixels for a standard 1440 display

3140 3840 X 2160 = 6,782,400 8,294,400 for a standard 4K display

It really depends on the games that you play as far as card choice. On the upside, the new GPU's have Simultaneous Multi Projection Technology which if implemented in the game makes multi-monitor setups much better.


Edited because I can't read.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

It is all about the pixels.

1920 X 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

X 3 (for your three monitors) = 6,220,800 pixels for your set up.

2560 X 1440 = 3,686,400 pixels for a standard 1440 display

3140 X 2160 = 6,782,400 for a standard 4K display

It really depends on the games that you play as far as card choice. On the upside, the new GPU's have Simultaneous Multi Projection Technology which if implemented in the game makes multi-monitor setups much better.

I think you meant 3840, not 3140.

 

[freakdiablo]

I think you meant 3840, not 3140.

Was going to say I thought 4k was 4x1080P, not roughly 3x. But a 4K monitor works out to 8,294,400 pixles.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

3 X 1080 basically sits dead in the middle of 1440 and 4K

 

[ATMINSIDE]

3 X 1080 basically sits dead in the middle of 1440 and 4K

Correct, but in my experience with 3x1080 it performs closer to 1440p FPS than 4K FPS due to use of Surround.

 

[Soulcatcher668]

I find that it is very title specific.

If you are running something that was designed to run 5760 X 1080 the load is lower. IRacing is a perfect example of that.

If you have to make .ini changes and force widescreen support it gets a little dicey. Fallout 3 comes to mind.

OP really need to tell us what he is playing and expecting. IMO.

 

[Zantal]

Resolution isn't the only thing affecting performance, even though it contributes the most to performance decrease.

Generally speaking when going surround you also force the engine to render at a higher field of view.

Higher field of view means more objects need to be rendered that before were out of the camera frustum.

So expect higher cpu usage (and slightly more non linear gpu usage as more geometry also needs to be rendered)

In most cases it shouldn't be a problem though, just do not expect a 1 : 1 correlation between pixel number and performance.