• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.


Dec 31, 2009
12,345 (4.06/day)
System Name Daily Driver
Processor 7960X 4.5GHz 16c/16t 1.17V
Motherboard MSI XPower Gaming Titanium
Cooling MCR320 + Kuplos Kryos NEXT CPU block
Memory GSkill Trident Z 4x8 GB DDR4 3600 MHz CL16
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1080 FTW3
Storage 512GB Patriot Hellfire, 512GB OCZ RD400, 640GB Caviar Black, 2TB Caviar Green
Display(s) 27" Acer Predator 2560x1440 144hz IPS + Yamakasi 27" 2560x1440 IPS
Case Thermaltake P5
Power Supply EVGA 750W Supernova G2
Benchmark Scores Faster than most of you! Bet on it! :)
Tell us something we dont know, quad SLI/CFx notoriously sucks! Why do you need such a setup anyway 3 2560x1600 panels?

LOL, wait... I just finished reading your post. You have 2 690's on a single monitor? W.T.F??? What were you thinking?
Oct 3, 2012
229 (0.11/day)
System Name Tiffany
Processor Intel i7 4770K @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H
Cooling Corsair H100i Push-Pull
Memory Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz 16GB
Video Card(s) XFX R9 290 Crossfire @ 925Mhz
Storage WD 500GB + Seagate 1 TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2420TX 120hz
Case Cooler Master CM690II Black & White
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Cooler Master Silent Pro 1000W
Software Windows 7
Hey Antjel... seriously. Do a favor to the Gods of Hardware, and keep the 690's. Assuming that you can afford such a setup, i believe you could also invest in 3x1080p monitors AT LEAST. And if you play on a single monitor, please tell me that you play on 2560x1440....


New Member
Feb 22, 2013
3 (0.00/day)
numbers tell nothing

Hi! I had 2 gtx 690 and was having better performance in every game (bf3 crysis2 and some other) with 2 gtx680. Meanwhile I upgraded my whole rig because i thought it was else, but it where the cards).

Can you please TECHPOWERUP, the next time use something more reliable than just fps?

with 2 690 I was getting 40% more fps than 2 overclocked 680 but general game slow down and speed up, like every 2 seconds it was whith rallenty.

So fps really don't tell how the game experience will look like.

You cud do vids, and attach them together for every game. So for one game we cud compare how smooth the different configuration are.
Or compare fps timing...


Senior Moderator
Staff member
Jul 19, 2006
42,698 (9.93/day)
Processor i7 8700K
Motherboard Asus Maximus Hero X WiFi
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB G.Skill 3200Mhz CL14
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Storage SSD's
Display(s) Nixeus EDG27
Case Thermaltake Core X5
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Zx
Power Supply Corsair H1000i
Mouse Zowie EC1-B
With scaling less than 50% for a 2nd card, I don't think frame timing would be my biggest concern for cards this expensive.


New Member
Feb 22, 2013
3 (0.00/day)

I am not an expert or anything like that but i have one thing that is making me confused:wtf:

How come that in almost all tests 1xGTX 690 had better results in all resolutions then 2xGTX 690?? Could some 1 plz explain that to me?
if 1 gtx 680 performs like 1
1+1 gtx 680 perform 1.9
1+1+1= 2,5
1+1+1+1= dunno
gtx 690 performs like 1,7 (counting also you overclock the gtx 680 more than the 690, I was able to run the 680 stable ingame with +95 on clock on stock cooler, while the 690's where crashing at +30)

690+690 are 0.2+$$$$ (away from your poket)
generally I think because of drivers, but cud find already somebody that had a not bad performance.

I talk about running 3x1920*1080 monitors.

finally there is no reason of having dual cards unless it is for space reasons

With scaling less than 50% for a 2nd card, I don't think frame timing would be my biggest concern for cards this expensive.
When i play online crysis2 on res 5900x1080 I see everything smooth with 90-110 fps. Before i had 2 now 3 gtx 680.
If I get less than 70-80fps the game isn't smooth.

As i have a 60hz monitor, and won't see more than 60 fps, what is it that makes the difference? I beliese when fps are higher also the frame timing is better.

people said that 2 titans have much better frame timings than 2 680, because of that even if you don't have much fps the game is very smooth.

Also I read amd cards generally where'n having good frame times, but more fps, so user cudn't understand why with gtx cards they where having a better game experience. So they started to compare also frame times, and there was the difference.

Anyway I would apreciate more a vid (Check if low fps of youtube isn't hiding important informations)

thanks for the fast reply :)

To the owners of gtx 680 I suggest buying a third gtx 680 instead of making other changes. unless they want to spend 2k on cards.
DONT mix 2gb and 4gb version, it runs only with 310 drivers or older, not compatible with crysis3. Nvidia doesn't support it anymore, now that it would have sense...
2gb are not the bottleneck with 3 hd screens, on crysis2 and bf3.

We really need AMD taking out a fast single gpu.
Last edited:


New Member
Oct 26, 2013
22 (0.01/day)
Yikes - quad SLI doesn't require a E chip. The extra lanes do next to nothing (assuming you have a plx chip). It's been proven time and time again at x8 the cards aren't even saturating the bus.

Course now I'm nit picking but apparently the writer quit wow awhile back. Considering the "most successful Mmorpg to ever ruin the entire genre, has had about half the quoted subs for a few years now"

12 mil at it's best of all time subs. 1/4 easily RMT. Now it has a smidgen over 6.

Damage is already one though. Other mmorpgs trying for the same number of subs assume it's due to how easy they made the game so every faux mmo since is designed as a one game fits all solution which always falls flat on it's face to all but the kids who were mmo first timers due to wow.

With that said - this isn't about wow it's about quad titans which I run. On a 1150 chipset at that. The only limiting factor is the clockspeed. X79 or x87/97 it makes no difference. It will be bottlenecked by your clockspeed not your pcie lanes.

The end