NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround Drivers Now Available

Didn't see this posted up here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVIDIA PR

Hi all,

Today is an exciting day for NVIDIA as we officially released our GeForce Beta v258.69 drivers which add support for 3D Vision Surround (3D) and NVIDIA Surround (2D). The driver is located here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce...ta-driver.html

Playing games in 3D Vision Surround is a unique immersive experience across three screens, combining the best technology NVIDIA has to offer: GeForce GTX 400 Series GPUs, 3D Vision, and SLI technology. You may have previously experienced 3D, but you have never seen 3D like this. You should check out our blog post here:
http://blogs.nvidia.com/ntersect/201...pc-gaming.html
… which also includes a video from the fine folks at Maingear, who have built an amazing racing simulator using 3D Vision technology. It’s one of those things that you need to see to believe!

Thanks and happy gaming!

---

NVIDIA Launches 3D Vision Surround
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3793/n...ision-surround
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...xperience.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2365748,00.asp
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...und_experience
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDI...round-is-Here/
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=946&type=expert&pid=1

Been reading, i'm very impressed of how nvidia nailed with problem "free" driver, it was late but seems to me was worth the wait... which tells a lot how good could improve in future... PCper has a decent review, I think is kinda biased but has a good analysis on the pricing topic, hey onethreehill add it to your list :)

So we can use our 3 monitors now??? About time..

I'm wondering were did they get that nice green wallpaper... trying to find it...

Finally it is out!

man this almost makes me wish i wasnt on vacation...cant wait to get home and put the 280's to the test!

the video at pcper is really good, i wan't expecting a discussion about the price of each set up including needed accesories. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

the video at pcper is really good, i wan't expecting a discussion about the price of each set up including needed accesories. :up:

---

I agree, imo pc per did a homerun with their video review...

hah, about time!
has anybody here played with it already?
arent the bezels even more annoying in 3d?

Not really. I thought they might be an issue, but I don't even notice them while playing, 3D or not.

There's an adjustment to help compensate, but I don't even bother with it.


Amorphous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

hah, about time!
has anybody here played with it already?
arent the bezels even more annoying in 3d?

---

It is good that there are options for multi-monitor gaming but is 16:10 dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic Chief

It is good that there are options for multi-monitor gaming but is 16:10 dead?

---

In general, monitor makers seem to be moving away from it. I had a hard time finding this 1920x1200 monitor since 95% of Samsung's monitors are now 1920x1080. Even Dell is selling mostly 1920x1080 now, because all companies are converging on 1080p (16:9).

So much for the state of technology always advancing...

What makes you ask if it's dying though? for the same reasons I mentioned above, 3D Vision ready monitors are 1920x1080 (16:9) too :(

Why is SLI required in order to run 3 monitors?

Thats somehow disappointing compared to the solution from ATI:

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives..._monitors.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Why is SLI required in order to run 3 monitors?

Thats somehow disappointing compared to the solution from ATI:

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives..._monitors.html

---

Because the RAMDAC only supports two monitor outputs on one card at the same time. I suppose. AMD has solved that by using DisplayPort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Svnth

In general, monitor makers seem to be moving away from it. I had a hard time finding this 1920x1200 monitor since 95% of Samsung's monitors are now 1920x1080. Even Dell is selling mostly 1920x1080 now, because all companies are converging on 1080p (16:9).

So much for the state of technology always advancing...

What makes you ask if it's dying though? for the same reasons I mentioned above, 3D Vision ready monitors are 1920x1080 (16:9) too :(

---

It's a real shame... now if you don't want to downgrade, you have to go for a 2560x1440+ resolution monitor.

But this leads directly to the need to buy a larger monitor (27" at least) and the selection and prices are not intriguing... :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

hah, about time!
has anybody here played with it already?
arent the bezels even more annoying in 3d?

---

Yes and no. If you sit about 3-4 feet away from the center monitor the bezels are at the edge of your peripheral vision. HOWEVER, if you sit TOO CLOSE to you center monitor, the "Surround" aspect will be partially nullified by the thick frames of the 3D Vision shutter glasses.

If you sit further away, I find the bezels to become a distraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic Chief

It is good that there are options for multi-monitor gaming but is 16:10 dead?

---

16:10 is dying. Monitor makers simply make more money off of the 1080P monitors due to being able to maximize the number of panels on each piece of substrate. In addition, consumer demand is fueling this as well since the uninformed masses like the sound of "1080P" so much so that it can now be used as a marketing tool for selling sub-par monitors.

I have been saying this for a year now: if you find a good 24" 16:10 monitor for an acceptable price, jump on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magic Chief

It is good that there are options for multi-monitor gaming but is 16:10 dead?

---

I wouldn't say dead yet but they have been pushed to higher tiered products. It's far cheaper to make 16:9 panels instead of 16:10 apparently, I don't welcome the reduction in resolution but it's the way the industry is moving.

I've been relegated to using my u2410's for eyefinity on my bedroom pc since switching to nv for my ws. Can you just use surround without the 3d rubbish or do you need to have the glasses and 3 of those nasty quality 120hz screens?

Surround without 3D is possible. best with same monitors, have been a few issues. So you don't need 120hz monitors for surround.

Hoping it's gonna work for Mass Effect 2, doing a new runthrough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conumdrum

Surround without 3D is possible. best with same monitors, have been a few issues. So you don't need 120hz monitors for surround.

Hoping it's gonna work for Mass Effect 2, doing a new runthrough.

---

Mass Effect 2 does not work with surround or Eyefinity for that matter. Sorry to burst your bubble.

i dont understand the appeal of this multi monitor stuff.
why is it better than one bigger monitor?

it seems like such an artificial way to increase the need for more expensive graphics cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont understand the appeal of this multi monitor stuff.
why is it better than one bigger monitor?

it seems like such an artificial way to increase the need for more expensive graphics cards

---

Aspect Ratio.

GTX 470 review is up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont understand the appeal of this multi monitor stuff.
why is it better than one bigger monitor?

it seems like such an artificial way to increase the need for more expensive graphics cards

---

It's all about having a commanding view of the action. With my 3 monitors I have a MUCH wider aspect ratio than any single display can hope to display. I have enormous peripheral vision in fps games which makes spotting targets a lot easier. In RTS/RPG games I can see much more of the battlefield and better prepare for enemies. In racing games it makes it easier to see the competition on my flanks and it makes it easier to set up turns.

All of that is simply not possible with even the biggest single can give you. Because even with an enormous single monitor you are at 16/9 or 16/10 aspect ratio. You have to experience it to understand it. There really is no going back to single monitor gaming once you've experienced the massive view afforded by multi monitor.

It is in no way an "artificial" way to necessitate more expensive cards. It's a whole new way to experience your games. And quite honestly in todays age of regurgitated console ports on PC it's nice to see this come along and breathe new life into PC gaming again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blacky

GTX 470 review is up

---

The 3d part kind of falls flat. The 3 display gaming performance in SLI looks like a winner when you consider price in regards to the gtx 470.

Do you have to buy a special dongle for eyefinity those for 3 monitors?

In addition to needing the extra GPU to drive the 3rd display, if you're planning on gaming even on 3 1680x1050 displays, you need the performance if you want good quality settings and playable framerates.

1 GPU just isn't going to drive 5040x1050 at >30 FPS in a recent game, let alone something like Metro 2033.

A single GPU might be capable of driving 3 really small displays (not with NVIDIA Surround, which requires SLI). I would prefer a single 24" display to 3 15" or 3 17" displays.


Amorphous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Why is SLI required in order to run 3 monitors?

Thats somehow disappointing compared to the solution from ATI:

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives..._monitors.html

---

Hows 3d vision scale compare to Eyefinity? like bezel matching up etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amorphous

I don't even notice them while playing, 3D or not.

---

are you blind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Yes and no. If you sit about 3-4 feet away from the center monitor the bezels are at the edge of your peripheral vision. HOWEVER, if you sit TOO CLOSE to you center monitor, the "Surround" aspect will be partially nullified by the thick frames of the 3D Vision shutter glasses.

If you sit further away, I find the bezels to become a distraction.

---

you mean the bezels of the glasses?
hmmm i was talking about the bezels of the monitors...
either you sit close to the center display, then the bezels are at your periphal vision but then whats the point of having 2 extra montiros if you barely see whats going on on them... or you sit further away and then the bezels become really annoying and id rather have a projector or a single big 30" display.... im really not sold on the multi display stuff ati and nvidia are trying to sell us...

it all seems to half heartedly, like a desperate approach to somehow make us NEED more pixel power...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

are you blind?


you mean the bezels of the glasses?
hmmm i was talking about the bezels of the monitors...
either you sit close to the center display, then the bezels are at your periphal vision but then whats the point of having 2 extra montiros if you barely see whats going on on them... or you sit further away and then the bezels become really annoying and id rather have a projector or a single big 30" display.... im really not sold on the multi display stuff ati and nvidia are trying to sell us...

it all seems to half heartedly, like a desperate approach to somehow make us NEED more pixel power...

---

+1, True but hey looks cool! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

It's all about having a commanding view of the action. With my 3 monitors I have a MUCH wider aspect ratio than any single display can hope to display. I have enormous peripheral vision in fps games which makes spotting targets a lot easier. In RTS/RPG games I can see much more of the battlefield and better prepare for enemies. In racing games it makes it easier to see the competition on my flanks and it makes it easier to set up turns.

All of that is simply not possible with even the biggest single can give you. Because even with an enormous single monitor you are at 16/9 or 16/10 aspect ratio. You have to experience it to understand it. There really is no going back to single monitor gaming once you've experienced the massive view afforded by multi monitor.

It is in no way an "artificial" way to necessitate more expensive cards. It's a whole new way to experience your games. And quite honestly in todays age of regurgitated console ports on PC it's nice to see this come along and breathe new life into PC gaming again.

---

:up::up::up::up::up:
Hit + nail + head.

I've been using triple monitors for some time now, and CraptacularOne gets it. I keep seeing these "one big single display is better" and/or "those bezels are too distracting" arguments crop up during discussions of this topic; I find them incredible/inexplicable. I can only assume that adherents to these arguments simply have not experienced surround gaming for themselves. :shrug:

Sure, each to his own opinion - but c'mon, would you black out the driver/passenger side windows on your car because the a-pillars are "too distracting"? (sorry for the auto analogy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

are you blind?


you mean the bezels of the glasses?
hmmm i was talking about the bezels of the monitors...
either you sit close to the center display, then the bezels are at your periphal vision but then whats the point of having 2 extra montiros if you barely see whats going on on them... or you sit further away and then the bezels become really annoying and id rather have a projector or a single big 30" display.... im really not sold on the multi display stuff ati and nvidia are trying to sell us...

it all seems to half heartedly, like a desperate approach to somehow make us NEED more pixel power...

---

The both have an impact with 3D Vision Surround.


And for the record, if you play a lot of strategy games Surround is a HUGE waste of money IMO. Due to the forced perspective, the side displays show next to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amorphous

In addition to needing the extra GPU to drive the 3rd display, if you're planning on gaming even on 3 1680x1050 displays, you need the performance if you want good quality settings and playable framerates.

1 GPU just isn't going to drive 5040x1050 at >30 FPS in a recent game, let alone something like Metro 2033.

A single GPU might be capable of driving 3 really small displays (not with NVIDIA Surround, which requires SLI). I would prefer a single 24" display to 3 15" or 3 17" displays.


Amorphous

---

Simply not true. I was previously running a single HD5870 with eyefinity using 3 1680x1050 displays for a combined resolution of 5040x1050 and it played games great. I wad easily able to max out dirt 2 and add 4xaa and fps were around 45-55. AVP maxed was around the same, battlefield bad company 2 maxed was 60+fps. So a single card is more than capable of giving you a great 3 monitor experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

The both have an impact with 3D Vision Surround.


And for the record, if you play a lot of strategy games Surround is a HUGE waste of money IMO. Due to the forced perspective, the side displays show next to nothing.

---

yeah... sure... but even in most fps games i really cant see how having those extra 2 monitors is so great...
craptacularone, you make a good point... for multi display gaming! but in 3d?
i think for some people multi display gaming really is worth it and is a lot of fun... but idk, for me personally... i wouldnt wanna spend that much extra money to have this added peripheral vision effect... but if your a die hard cs player or play other multiplayer games then this is really a killer feature... but 3d? thats nonsense...

i wanna see an eyedoctor report of a strategy fps gamer before and after playing in 3d for about a month or two :lol:
seriously... 3d is really awesome, the potential is there, but its so frustrating to see it fail so close to being where it needs to be...
its like you can grasp the awesomeness proper 3d gaming will be in some years but just cant get there...

anyways, its cool that nvidia enables 3d multi display gaming... its still better than nothing, and is a really cool feature...
its just a shame that its causing me more of a headache and the bezels would probably be annoying me more than the 3d would wow me... :D

I remember back in the days of the TNT2 Ultra, I saw numerous articles proclaiming that games were finally playable at 1600x1200 resolution. However, IME that was stated prematurely.

So what I'm saying is that, being that we're only in gen1 of tripple head supported gear from ATI and nVidia, I would expect performance to get better in the future.

To me, it's getting a bit old hat to see the highest end video cards aimed at 2560x1600 and 1920x1200. Now they can be aimed at 3600x1920 and 5760x1200 (add couple hundred here or there for bezel management). Or so I hope. If this is case, then we all win by getting more powerful hardware sooner rather than later. If this isn't the case, then ATI really needs to get CF scaling up to speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock&Roll

I remember back in the days of the TNT2 Ultra, I saw numerous articles proclaiming that games were finally playable at 1600x1200 resolution. However, IME that was stated prematurely.

So what I'm saying is that, being that we're only in gen1 of tripple head supported gear from ATI and nVidia, I would expect performance to get better in the future.

To me, it's getting a bit old hat to see the highest end video cards aimed at 2560x1600 and 1920x1200. Now they can be aimed at 3600x1920 and 5760x1200 (add couple hundred here or there for bezel management). Or so I hope. If this is case, then we all win by getting more powerful hardware sooner rather than later. If this isn't the case, then ATI really needs to get CF scaling up to speed.

---

but the reason most reviews dont show perf at those resolutions is... cause nobody is actually using them ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah... sure... but even in most fps games i really cant see how having those extra 2 monitors is so great...
craptacularone, you make a good point... for multi display gaming! but in 3d?
i think for some people multi display gaming really is worth it and is a lot of fun... but idk, for me personally... i wouldnt wanna spend that much extra money to have this added peripheral vision effect... but if your a die hard cs player or play other multiplayer games then this is really a killer feature... but 3d? thats nonsense...

i wanna see an eyedoctor report of a strategy fps gamer before and after playing in 3d for about a month or two :lol:
seriously... 3d is really awesome, the potential is there, but its so frustrating to see it fail so close to being where it needs to be...
its like you can grasp the awesomeness proper 3d gaming will be in some years but just cant get there...

anyways, its cool that nvidia enables 3d multi display gaming... its still better than nothing, and is a really cool feature...
its just a shame that its causing me more of a headache and the bezels would probably be annoying me more than the 3d would wow me... :D

---

No I don't play in 3D. I tried the 3D vision at a local PC shop and found the effect somewhat irritating to my eyes and could easily see it giving me a headache after a while of use. I play in standard surround and love it. The advantages of having that huge view of the horizon in fps games is absolutely invaluable. Get yourself in a nice high perch in Battlefield BC2 for instance with the sniper class and it's open season :shoot: :D

3 monitor gaming is awesome and you really should check it out of you can. I got all 3 of my monitors for under $300 total. Just keep an eye out for deals and snag them when you see a good deal.

I want to pick up 2 more 46" 1920x1080's and give tripple display a go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

I want to pick up 2 more 46" 1920x1080's and give tripple display a go.

---

Man 3x 46"? no offense dude, that res would look crap on them big ass lcd's..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

Simply not true. I was previously running a single HD5870 with eyefinity using 3 1680x1050 displays for a combined resolution of 5040x1050 and it played games great. I wad easily able to max out dirt 2 and add 4xaa and fps were around 45-55. AVP maxed was around the same, battlefield bad company 2 maxed was 60+fps. So a single card is more than capable of giving you a great 3 monitor experience.

---

I call BS. BF BC2 maxed at 5040x1050 on a single 5870 and 60+fps? I think not. Was this with 4xAA? If yes, even more not true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I call BS. BF BC2 maxed at 5040x1050 on a single 5870 and 60+fps? I think not. Was this with 4xAA? If yes, even more not true...

---

I love comments of bs from people that don't have the hardware or experience with surround :rolleyes: No it's not bs and for the record I probably should mention that my HD5870 was clocked at 1050/5400. Battlefield bad company 2 played much better in 3 monitor with maxed settings on ATI's eyefinity than it currently does with nvidia's surround.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

I love comments of bs from people that don't have the hardware or experience with surround :rolleyes: No it's not bs and for the record I probably should mention that my HD5870 was clocked at 1050/5400. Battlefield bad company 2 played much better in 3 monitor with maxed settings on ATI's eyefinity than it currently does with nvidia's surround.

---

I don't have experience with eyefinity or surround, but I do have experience with a GTX480 and 1920x1200 with max details, and even then the FPS is not always above 60fps. There is no way a single 5870 holds 60fps at the eyefinity resolution you are using at max details, especially if you are using 4xAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I call BS. BF BC2 maxed at 5040x1050 on a single 5870 and 60+fps? I think not. Was this with 4xAA? If yes, even more not true...

---

CraptacularOne's claim is not...err, crap.

I appreciate skepticism as much as the next guy - but if you're gonna call BS, at least make a reasoned argument and/or provide some evidence refuting the claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I don't have experience with eyefinity or surround, but I do have experience with a GTX480 and 1920x1200 with max details, and even then the FPS is not always above 60fps. There is no way a single 5870 holds 60fps at the eyefinity resolution you are using at max details, especially if you are using 4xAA.

---

Yikes!!! "...I have no experience..." + "...there is no way..." :stick:

I, for one, have absolutely no problem believing Crap's claim. Why? There's a "test performance" function in HAWX - I'm getting this:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/...3f1528aa37.jpg

at 5040x1050x60Hz on a GTX275 and an HD 4450 using SoftTH. All settings maxed (except AA, because SoftTH is cranky about it).

For those unfamiliar with SoftTH, it basically uses custom dlls and 2 graphics cards to provide output to three monitors. Important thing to note here is that the entire scene (all 5,292,000 pixels) is being rendered on the GTX275. Yes, no AA. Yes, SoftTH is DX9. Yes, HAWX isn't the latest/greatest/most stressful game out there. But if I'm getting these results with SoftTH, it's no stretch for me to imagine CraptacularOne's 5870 providing those framerates at max settings/5040x1050 using Eyefinity.

Be that as it may, the stars have aligned: the new drivers are out, and EVGA finally has my GTX275 SC back in stock ('bout time). I'm pulling the trigger today to go surround using nVidia's solution. (bye SoftTh, it's been fun)

For me, when you look at the difference between this:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/...0b055f9e66.jpg

and this:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/...4961f5ba_b.jpg

...it's just no contest. There will be a renaissance for PC gaming due to this tech. It'll be awhile (if ever) that a console will give you this kind of experience. Thanks to both AMD and nVidia for bringing this technology mainstream.

Oh, and +1 for CraptacularOne (again)

I'm not sure one needs to expect a renaissance because of triple head gaming. It's really in the eye of the beholder. A pure pragmatist is going to look at those two screenshots and see that they show the same quantity of action. While there are some games where the outer two screens really do give you feedback and action, the list is not long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I don't have experience with eyefinity or surround, but I do have experience with a GTX480 and 1920x1200 with max details, and even then the FPS is not always above 60fps. There is no way a single 5870 holds 60fps at the eyefinity resolution you are using at max details, especially if you are using 4xAA.

---

You could have just stopped your response right there. Given that you have no experience and clearly no understanding of said topic, why do you persist? :slap:

I know you may find it hard to believe but there are games where a HD5870 is as fast or faster than a GTX480 (especially when you overclock the HD5870 to 1050/5400 like my card was). My fps in BFBC2 with a HD5870 were consistently above 60 with max details at 5040x1050.

Now until you have some experience stop posting random drivel that you don't want to believe for no other reason than just to be argumentative :slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

You could have just stopped your response right there. Given that you have no experience and clearly no understanding of said topic, why do you persist? :slap:

I know you may find it hard to believe but there are games where a HD5870 is as fast or faster than a GTX480 (especially when you overclock the HD5870 to 1050/5400 like my card was). My fps in BFBC2 with a HD5870 were consistently above 60 with max details at 5040x1050.

Now until you have some experience stop posting random drivel that you don't want to believe for no other reason than just to be argumentative :slap:

---

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...i_6.html#sect2

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/g...2909/23083.png

Now I'm not going to say you were lying but I believe what I see. Also, even though you OCed it to those speeds it won't double the frames.

im not a fan of how wide aspects mess with things. in some games its like hacking, in other games they need to let your perspective zoom out a little.

i dont like using super wide, im happy with 16:9, and so i would do 3x1 portrait instead of landscaped, but in doing that its just a really big version of a standard screen, but now with bezels, so double failure.

hopefully with more monitor options many pc games will let you modify your aspect to get the version you like best, or limit what happens when people go ultra wide. think about a fps, where you can scope in on someone, and still have the 2 side screens working, i think thats called hacking. for realism we will need 240fps since that is the human limit for reacting to motion (not the point in which flickering becomes a blur, thats 45ish fps).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...i_6.html#sect2

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/g...2909/23083.png

Now I'm not going to say you were lying but I believe what I see. Also, even though you OCed it to those speeds it won't double the frames.

---

They do not mention how or where in what level they tested in BFBC2. I am quoting my fps from what I saw in MP on my machine. I play rush and our server plays mostly Arica Harbor, Valparasio, Port Valdez and Nelson Bay. While I will say my results are hardly scientific as I didn't make any official passes but I do have some screens showing fps on a single HD5870:

Granted these are not official but they are representative of what I was seeing most of the time:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/761/bfbc2game1.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3391/bfbc2game2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

You could have just stopped your response right there. Given that you have no experience and clearly no understanding of said topic, why do you persist? :slap:

I know you may find it hard to believe but there are games where a HD5870 is as fast or faster than a GTX480 (especially when you overclock the HD5870 to 1050/5400 like my card was). My fps in BFBC2 with a HD5870 were consistently above 60 with max details at 5040x1050.

Now until you have some experience stop posting random drivel that you don't want to believe for no other reason than just to be argumentative :slap:

---

Ok, reading your posts makes me cringe.

A gtx480, is at most, 5% worse than the 5870 in bc2. If a gtx480 AND a 5870 consistently get 40-ish fps on the chase benchmark at 2560x1600, then there is NO FREAKING WAY a 5870, with slightly better clocks, is gonna pull 60 + with screens that have 50% more pixels. NO FREAKING WAY.

And you're argument FOR multi-monitor is fine, immersion and what not. But saying it improves your game is a joke. Play me, on my single monitor, against your 3 monitors, and I guarantee you I will not only beat you, but make you look like a fool with your "invaluable" 3 monitor advantage.


AND, after seeing the pics you post above, I just can't believe your argument. Look at the stretching on the sides, not only does it look horrible, you can replicate that effect on a single monitor. So your argument of 'viewing angle' advantage is crap as well.
The monitors may be nice, or even 'useful' in games, but giving you a real advantage? I don't think so. Sounds like you're just justifying the amount of money you spent on it.

But hey, what do I know, I haven't actually used a 5870 at 5760x1080 getting 60+ fps, when in legitimate benchmarks, 5870s pull considerably less at considerably lower resolutions.

I don't usually comment, but your argument "no experience - no right to comment" is crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

Ok, reading your posts makes me cringe.

A gtx480, is at most, 5% worse than the 5870 in bc2. If a gtx480 AND a 5870 consistently get 40-ish fps on the chase benchmark at 2560x1600, then there is NO FREAKING WAY a 5870, with slightly better clocks, is gonna pull 60 + with screens that have 50% more pixels. NO FREAKING WAY.

And you're argument FOR multi-monitor is fine, immersion and what not. But saying it improves your game is a joke. Play me, on my single monitor, against your 3 monitors, and I guarantee you I will not only beat you, but make you look like a fool with your "invaluable" 3 monitor advantage.


AND, after seeing the pics you post above, I just can't believe your argument. Look at the stretching on the sides, not only does it look horrible, you can replicate that effect on a single monitor. So your argument of 'viewing angle' advantage is crap as well.
The monitors may be nice, or even 'useful' in games, but giving you a real advantage? I don't think so. Sounds like you're just justifying the amount of money you spent on it.

But hey, what do I know, I haven't actually used a 5870 at 5760x1080 getting 60+ fps, when in legitimate benchmarks, 5870s pull considerably less at considerably lower resolutions.

I don't usually comment, but your argument "no experience - no right to comment" is crap.

---

lol...I love trolls :slap:

Go back under the rock you crawled out from ok?

Aww does somebodies ego hurt? Those were the fps I was seeing with my setup. I had this argument before when I stated the performance I was getting. The numbers in the screen are there for you to see. I'm not making them up.

And now you want to play me? Where in this thread did I state that I was the best BFBC2 player? I just said it makes things a lot easier to see and spot targets with multi monitor. Calm down with your nerd rage junior :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

lol...I love trolls :slap:

Go back under the rock you crawled out from ok?

Aww does somebodies ego hurt? Those were the fps I was seeing with my setup. I had this argument before when I stated the performance I was getting. The numbers in the screen are there for you to see. I'm not making them up.

And now you want to play me? Where in this thread did I state that I was the best BFBC2 player? I just said it makes things a lot easier to see and spot targets with multi monitor. Calm down with your nerd rage junior :rolleyes:

---

"lol...I love trolls :slap:"

"Go back under the rock you crawled out from ok?"

"Aww does somebodies ego hurt?"

"Calm down with your nerd rage junior"


For someone so mature, sophisticated, intelligent, and clearly in-the-know about everything multi-monitor, I'm surprised your refined argument is so immature, childish, and indicative of all the things you accuse me of.

"Where in this thread did I state that I was the best BFBC2 player?"

You never did... I never said you did either. Just you stated it makes playing much easier. Which seems silly because I'm confident I'm a better player than you without the 'ease' of having lots of money to spend on a monitor.


As for Nvidia 3d vision, I've always wanted to try it but didn't feel like dropping the money on a monitor thats a downgrade from the one I have currently. I wish there was a way to try it easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

"lol...I love trolls :slap:"



For someone so mature, sophisticated, intelligent, and clearly in-the-know about everything multi-monitor, I'm surprised your refined argument is so immature, childish, and indicative of all the things you accuse me of.

You never did... I never said you did either. Just you stated it makes playing much easier. Which seems silly because I'm confident I'm a better player than you without the 'ease' of having lots of money to spend on a monitor.


As for Nvidia 3d vision, I've always wanted to try it but didn't feel like dropping the money on a monitor thats a downgrade from the one I have currently. I wish there was a way to try it easily.

---

You may be a better player than me even with my ability to more easily spot targets. But what makes you so confident that you are a better player? You can judge someones skill at a game by what they post in a forum? :slap:

And I never said I know everything there is to know about anything. I've only stated my observations of what I was seeing and provided the screen shots showing as much.

As for downgrading your monitor well, yes and no. Yes I downgraded from a 24" 1920x1200 monitor to 20.1" 1680x1050 monitor but I have 3 20.1" 1680x1050 monitors. It was well worth it. While the individual screen size may be smaller you have to remember you have 3 of them and it more than compensates for it. I would have just gone with 2 more 24" monitors but 2 things were stopping me: 1) my desk would barely be able to fit them and 2) the cost of just adding 2 more 24" monitors to match the one I already had was more expensive than all 3 of the 20.1" monitors I now have. So I sold the 24" and haven't looked back since.

I have three monitors here waiting to mod but do not have time ATM to even hook them up. Plan to have this mod ready by PAX?
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/51/dsc02396r.jpg

thats the same expression a cat gives when its about to pee on something

CraptacularOne, sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just bewildered a 5870 gets 60+ at all times (you sure it doesn't drop below? I can't stand the fps lag in bc2 as it makes mouse sensitivity lower).

As for better player, I'm semi-pro :)


I for one can't get three monitors, I only have room for 'maybe' two 20" on my desk, and as far as I'm concerned, having a bezel go right through the center of the screen is far from ideal.




Darth, does the cat go with the monitors? Guaranteed win-button, drop some catnip by 'accident' near your opponents 'mouse' and watch :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock&Roll

I'm not sure one needs to expect a renaissance because of triple head gaming. It's really in the eye of the beholder. A pure pragmatist is going to look at those two screenshots and see that they show the same quantity of action. While there are some games where the outer two screens really do give you feedback and action, the list is not long.

---

Well if the list is not long, maybe you could post it? :D (sorry for being an ass)

Yes, those particular screenshots don't show much action on the side monitors - they were selected for convenience in composing my post. I guess I should've posted screenshots of GRID or L4D or NFS Shift or Batman or Prototype or Fuel or Dirt 2 or Bioshock or Metro 2033 or Devil May Cry IV or or or etc. Fact is, posting screenshots of multimonitor gaming is like showing someone a picture of the Grand Canyon and expecting them to really "get it". I guess I was foolish in doing so. :shakes:

But, for the sake of argument (which there now appears to be no shortage of in this thread!), lets assume that no currently published game has ANYTHING useful rendered in the periphery. Would your "pragmatist" argue that the hardware is useless or "gimmicky"? Would your "pragmatist" have taken a similar position on multicore processors when they first appeared, because the list of software utilizing multiple processors was "short"?

IMO, anyone poo-pooing this technology is pissing against the wind. Apparently there's some clever guys at AMD and nVidia who seem to think there's a future in it. With the backing of the major players, game publishers will get on board with multimonitor - and yes there will be a renaissance!

EDIT: Looks like things can bee taken a little too far. Check out this Frankenstein setup using SoftTH + Eyefinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

CraptacularOne, sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just bewildered a 5870 gets 60+ at all times (you sure it doesn't drop below? I can't stand the fps lag in bc2 as it makes mouse sensitivity lower).

As for better player, I'm semi-pro :)


I for one can't get three monitors, I only have room for 'maybe' two 20" on my desk, and as far as I'm concerned, having a bezel go right through the center of the screen is far from ideal.

---

No worries, it's just the internetz..:p:

It may go below 60fps here and there but not for long and as I said my results are far from scientific. When I was playing I would glance over at the fps and it was usually way above 60. I was honestly surprised myself at the performance and is why I grabbed the screens showing the fps.

As for skill, I'm no pro or semi pro, I'm just an average gamer. I'm far from bad though my K/D is around 1.79. I would honestly say my K/D has improved with 3 monitor gaming though. It really is a lot easier to spot targets with a wider aspect ratio. I'm sure if you're a semi pro you'd agree after experiencing it. Having a massive view field makes it harder for enemies to flank you too.

I agree that a bezel in the center screen is a bad idea but with 3 monitors you only have bezels on the sides. And really after you start playing you hardly notice them. The slight annoyance they present is easily forgiven with the increased view you have of the horizon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

CraptacularOne, sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just bewildered a 5870 gets 60+ at all times (you sure it doesn't drop below? I can't stand the fps lag in bc2 as it makes mouse sensitivity lower).

As for better player, I'm semi-pro :)


I for one can't get three monitors, I only have room for 'maybe' two 20" on my desk, and as far as I'm concerned, having a bezel go right through the center of the screen is far from ideal.




Darth, does the cat go with the monitors? Guaranteed win-button, drop some catnip by 'accident' near your opponents 'mouse' and watch :)

---

my personal experience with BC2 and a single 5870 at 5292x1050 is that frame rates are around 40-50 with stock clocks on the 5870. Crossfire helps gain about 10-15 frames in this game, if your system doesn't stutter with CF (mine doesn't).

That frankenstein rig is just.....unusable :p: But really, what I'd like to see with eyefinity/surround is this: A single (40" or so) landscape monitor working with 3072x1920 (16:10) or 3414x1920 (16:9) resolution flanked by two 24" 1920x1200 monitors in portrait.

You'd get less bezel interference in surround, and if your game/app sucks in surround, you're still left with one hell of a big center monitor.

1x 2560x1600 flanked by 1600x1200's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

1x 2560x1600 flanked by 1600x1200's

---

Not possible with NV surround. All displays have to be the same resolution.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dv-sys...echnology.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

Not possible with NV surround. All displays have to be the same resolution.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dv-sys...echnology.html

---

Not possible yet anyways

ditched my 5870 for a pair of gtx470s and I am pretty impressed with Nvidia's multi-monitor implementation.. so far so good.. easy to setup, performs well, seems very stable so far also.. fingers x'd keeps on acting like that. :)

Btw, in regards to the BC2 comments, I'm not surprised that a 5870 can drive triple monitor at 60fps+. BC2 is a way more cpu bound than gpu, my 4870 512mb could run BC2 with everything on high/no AA/no HBAO at 1920x1200 res very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

lol...I love trolls :slap:

Go back under the rock you crawled out from ok?

Aww does somebodies ego hurt? Those were the fps I was seeing with my setup. I had this argument before when I stated the performance I was getting. The numbers in the screen are there for you to see. I'm not making them up.

And now you want to play me? Where in this thread did I state that I was the best BFBC2 player? I just said it makes things a lot easier to see and spot targets with multi monitor. Calm down with your nerd rage junior :rolleyes:

---

You are the one posting very immature comments and trolling.

You are also rejecting deductive reasoning.

Let's start with some base facts.

GTX480 stock > 5870 stock.

At maximum details in BC BF2 at 1920x1200 with a stock GTX480, it does not have a minimum FPS of 60. Therefore, the same can be said about a 5870 as it is a slower card. Granted yours is overclocked, but that wouldn't cause a massive increase in performance, the FPS boost would be in the single digits.

Now, based on the previously established facts that a GTX480 at 1920x1200 on maximum details in BC BF2 does not maintain a minimum FPS of 60, and that the 5870 is slower than the GTX480 (an overclock won't turn the tides of the final conclusion), it can be easily deduced that a 5870 (even overclocked) will not maintain a minimum FPS of 60 at maximum details at 5040x1050, when the GTX480 fails to do this at 1920x1200.

That is pushing more than DOUBLE the number of pixels as a GTX480 running at 1920x1200, which doesn't have a minimum FPS of 60.

Also are you using 4xAA? That still isn't very clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

You are the one posting very immature comments and trolling.

You are also rejecting deductive reasoning.

Let's start with some base facts.

GTX480 stock > 5870 stock.

At maximum details in BC BF2 at 1920x1200 with a stock GTX480, it does not have a minimum FPS of 60. Therefore, the same can be said about a 5870 as it is a slower card. Granted yours is overclocked, but that wouldn't cause a massive increase in performance, the FPS boost would be in the single digits.

Now, based on the previously established facts that a GTX480 at 1920x1200 on maximum details in BC BF2 does not maintain a minimum FPS of 60, and that the 5870 is slower than the GTX480 (an overclock won't turn the tides of the final conclusion), it can be easily deduced that a 5870 (even overclocked) will not maintain a minimum FPS of 60 at maximum details at 5040x1050, when the GTX480 fails to do this at 1920x1200.

That is pushing more than DOUBLE the number of pixels as a GTX480 running at 1920x1200, which doesn't have a minimum FPS of 60.

Also are you using 4xAA? That still isn't very clear.

---

By looking at the screenshots he posted i'm going to say no AA or 2X, not that it really matters since you should be paying more attention to gameplay than how many triangles are on the blade of grass next to the guy you're shooting.

As to the performance numbers, well i'm gonna say maybe we should look into how the exact numbers have been achieved in what you are using to compare with the numbers being shown. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ight=benchmark

I wish I would have bought 120Mhz monitors now instead of 60 lol...oh well. ATI doesn't even do 3D yet. I am sure the 6000 series will but until then I will just be stuck with eyefinity.

@ ElSel10, the only thing I'm rejecting is your notion that you have any idea you know what you are talking about :rolleyes: The only game I mentioned that I was running 4xAA in was Dirt 2. BFBC2 was run at 2xAA in the screens I posted. Furthermore where in this thread did I say the fps was minimum 60? I said it was 60+. I suggest you go back a actually READ what I wrote before you spout off nonsense and making :banana::banana::banana::banana: up :slap:

if your a pro or semi pro, you dont use visual candy, you turn it all down to remove distractions and increase fps.

Then BC2 is runable with eyefinity using a single 5850.
overclocked ofc.
5760x1050.

noobs plays using visual candy if you ask me.
;)

is 3d vision only for 3d or it includes normal play +3d if you wanna go 3D?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

3 monitor gaming is awesome and you really should check it out of you can. I got all 3 of my monitors for under $300 total. Just keep an eye out for deals and snag them when you see a good deal.

---

well... i got my current 22" 1920x1080 samsung when the financial crysis hit hard for around 120$ :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthBeavis

I have three monitors here waiting to mod but do not have time ATM to even hook them up. Plan to have this mod ready by PAX?
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/51/dsc02396r.jpg

---

nice :D what mod? remove bezels? :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

@ ElSel10, the only thing I'm rejecting is your notion that you have any idea you know what you are talking about :rolleyes: The only game I mentioned that I was running 4xAA in was Dirt 2. BFBC2 was run at 2xAA in the screens I posted. Furthermore where in this thread did I say the fps was minimum 60? I said it was 60+. I suggest you go back a actually READ what I wrote before you spout off nonsense and making :banana::banana::banana::banana: up :slap:

---

The way I was interpreting it was that you were saying it maintained a minimum FPS of 60, and you had mentioned 4xAA for one game, but then no more mentioned it again and I was unsure whether it was that one game, or all of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

if your a pro or semi pro, you dont use visual candy, you turn it all down to remove distractions and increase fps.
...
noobs plays using visual candy if you ask me.
;)

---

I can't help but smirk when people use the word "professional" and "gamer" in the same sentence. I know it's real and people make money from it, but still.

"Son, get off that game! You've been playing it all day! Not now mom, I'm a professional!" :p:

@Darth, wth is that R2D2ish looking thingy.