NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround Drivers Now Available

[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

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

[Johnny87au]

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

[saaya]

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

are you blind?

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...

[Johnny87au]

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

[SMTB1963]

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.

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.

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)

[SKYMTL]

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.

[CraptacularOne]

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.

[saaya]

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
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...

[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.

[saaya]

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 ^^

[CraptacularOne]

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
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...

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

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.

[STEvil]

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

[Johnny87au]

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..

[ElSel10]

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...

[CraptacularOne]

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 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.

[ElSel10]

I love comments of bs from people that don't have the hardware or experience with surround 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.

[SMTB1963]

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.

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..."

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



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:



and this:



...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)

[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.

[CraptacularOne]

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?

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

[Clairvoyant129]

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?

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

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.

[Manicdan]

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).

[CraptacularOne]

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

[orangekiwii]

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?

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

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.

[CraptacularOne]

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

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

[orangekiwii]

lol...I love trolls

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

"lol...I love trolls "

"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.