NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Reviewed in 2-way SLI and Surround

[Apoptosis]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Reviewed in 2-Way SLI and NVIDIA Surround

Gamers want the ability to play any PC game with buttery smooth frame rates. If you are gaming at 1920x1080, that really isn't that tough to accomplish with most high-end discrete graphics cards. Those that are gaming at Ultra HD or 4K resolutions have a much harder time getting the smooth frame rates at the image quality settings they would like. Read on to see if running a pair of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 video cards in 2-way SLI is the answer!

The performance of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 2-way SLI setup was very impressive. We had a perfect game experience on our 30-inch panel and was able to crank up all the image quality settings and play at 2560x1600 with no issues at all. If you are gaming at 2560x1600 or on a 4K monitor we can easily recommend a setup like this...

Article Title: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Reviewed in 2-way SLI and Surround
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2210/1/
Pricing at Time of Print: $399.99 per card

[Guywithnocommonsense]

It's interesting that you even benched these @ 2560x1600 resolution which is what I'm gaming at too, while some other reviews don't or omit them for the lesser 2560x1440 sibling! Though getting figures for 1440p benches should still be applicable, just maybe expect that you will get slightly less fps for the extra 160 pixels in height increase.

All testing was done using a fresh install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and benchmarks were completed on the desktop with no other software programs running.

How is this possible if some of these games require Steam client to be running in the background...?

Tomb Raider Benchmark

We set the image quality to ultimate for benchmarking, but we disabled TressFX Hair under the advanced tab to be fair to NVIDIA graphics cards that don’t support the feature.

You do realize this would then just be the Ultra preset, right? Because Ultra and Ultimate is pretty much the same, except for the added TressFx for Ultimate.

I also got confused how you got ~113 fps on average at 1600p when I only got 36 on average. Until I checked out the preset advance tab to see what is turned on and what isn't by default and realize I was actually running the game at *Maximum* image quality . I thought Ultimate was maximum, nope just only a few settings here and there tuned down a bit. So I switched the preset from Custom to Ultimate and turned TressFX off and it reverted to Ultra, I compared and it was exactly the same as Ultimate, but without TressFX setting on. Ran a benchmark on that preset and yeah, my average fps does compare to yours - I got ~110fps, probably minus 3 fps due to other software programs and stuff running in the background, compared to your 113 figure.

In case anyone wants proof, here's a screenshot of my results on Maximum: http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.c ... 6CE33A02E/ and another on Ultra(same settings as the ones used in the review): http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.c ... 2578C8116/

So I'm wondering, why don't you bench these games with all eyecandy turned on? Is it that there's not really any distinguishable image improvements over the settings you chose or....?

Sorry couldn't stop myself from nitpicking and creating an account solely to comment about it....hahaha