I would assume with that ressolution 30fps is unexceptible and if you had read the post you quoted you would see he stated high settings not ultra (or maxed out) and x2 AA or no AA at all. That is why alot of us are suggesting the higher end single cards and not really the dual cadrs or Titan.
If you consider playing at 45 fps in a game like Bioshock Infinite let alone whatever else is in the pipeline good then yea it's overkill. Personally if i'm buying a new PC and right out of the box it can't play current games at 60fps at my monitors res let alone whatevers coming in the next year I would consider that under powered.
GTX 670 2GB SLI has served me well at 1440p, I would agree that one isn't enough at this res. I haven't had to worry about Vram limits so far, though the 4GB versions weren't out when I picked these up. Wouldn't hurt to have a couple more gigs to play with down the line I guess.
I see you've removed me from your ignore list then, such a relief for me. Isn't it much nicer this way? You can read my post and then have a little dig at me I can't see why a bigger screen would require no AA, the pixel size is roughly the same as a smaller screen with lower res, I would expect some AA to be needed. A GTX680 is just about enough to push 60FPS (average) in FarCry3 and Crysis3 not on ultra settings. Minimum framerate is going to dip down into the 30s though which may not be acceptable. I would say GTX680 and you'll probably need to add another one or upgrade in a year or so when the next-gen console ports are coming out.
My 2gtx 660's do the job extremely well. i,ve upgraded from a 1080p monitor recently the performance loss is about 30%.My advice gtx 680 or above .
Id defo say Titan, 670/680 4gb sli, or xfire 7950/7970 for that res. As I downsample where I can (both with my current 7970 amd previous 680) one single card - bar Titan will struggle at that res in more demanding games. Crysis 3, BF3, Metro, Sleeping dogs to name a few. Less taxing games/ console ports and you'd be good up to alot more than 1440p with a single 680 or 7970.
As has been said, I'd say 670/680 SLI or 7950/7970. A 670 isn't always enough to max out games at 1080p60 anymore, let alone 1440p.
The idea of the higher resolution on say a smaller screen is that the screen has a higher pixel density this is assuming he has say a 24" monitor in my experience on my 21.5 1080 screens I really don't need much if any AA on most games in my experience some AA modes do more damage than help in IQ. While i do agree that you will have dips under 60 with the one card -TK- already stated that even his setup has dips in the 40's on his sli system. Even sli Titans may get sub 60 dips in Crysis 3. My personal oppinion is as long as the minimum frame rate stays above 30fps the game is very playable. And if you want to act juvenile please PM me this has no place on this thread. As the OP states he is not expecting to "max out" games he wants high settings and low to no AA.
1440p is 78% more dots than 1080p Might as well just say it's 'twice the rez'. If you have a 120hz 1440p display, and are shooting for a minimum of 60-120 fps, with average well over 120 fps, then a single Titan isn't enough in many games (I turn down the graphics in a few games). Personally, I shoot for 60fps min in non-competitive games, and 120fps min in competitive games. In a case like that, you actually need a good bit of power to get guaranteed high fps minimums. -scheherazade
