Widescreen Gaming Forum

Anyways, back on topic.

I had a TN panel before eyefinity. I thought it looked great too. Then I got S-IPS, and was blown away by the colors and the crispness. I'm not a photoshop snob, and I have no problems playing games on a TN. But I certainly understand what TN-bashers are saying when they say it is a 2nd-rate panel. "Poor" was a poor choice of words, but there is definately a difference between TN and S-IPS. So while you may scoff at paying 50% more for my panels, I cant help but feel like you've never compared the two.

Which brings us all the way back to your original statement about 500$ DP panels. You aren't paying 300$ extra for displayport. All those monitors are for graphics-designers and provide a richer image quality. Of course paying for 3 of them is a massive investment and will be hard to swallow for most people. Nor does it accomplish eyefinity's goal of bringing surround to mainstream. But eyefinity does provide the most affordable main-stream surround option.

In theory, all you need is
1x 5x00 card
2x non-DP monitors
1x DP monitor

or if you must have identical monitors
3x non-DP monitors + adapter
And this is where ATI screwed up.

But as tineras pointed out, 3 DP monitors is very much affordable. It is slightly more expensive, but not 3x as much. But if your position is that Nv is better for those who do not wish to buy new monitors and yet do not wish to mix, then it really only applies to someone who already has SLI. And the percentage of people who have SLI is probably the same as those who have DP when eyefinity first came out. Now for those who dont, getting SLI is at least as much trouble as selling their monitor and buying 3 native DP ones.

If anyone is really getting screwed financially from eyefinity, it is graphics-designers. They HAVE to have S-IPS panels that retails for 500$ a piece.

Unless HardOCP are badly wrong in their reporting, those projectors are Acer 720p jobs that used 'CRT connectors' (aka: VGA or D-SUB) and not DVI.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/01/08/nvidia_3d_surround_multidisplay_gaming_editorial

Although Kyle Bennett has my full support (for whatever that is worth) for his last comment:

For god’s sake NVIDIA, if you pull this bullshit where 3D Surround "games" will not work on Eyefinity configurations, we are going to beat NVIDIA down repeatedly and publicly for harming the PC gaming industry. Keep those crappy proprietary PhysX policies, but if you start messing with OUR multi-display gaming and not letting it remain "open platform," I will personally lead the mob with the burning torches to the castle gates. And we will be fully prepared to use the torches. I will personally lead a boycott of NVIDIA products if I see NVIDIA harm multi-display gaming in the marketplace through an IP grab. Multi-display gaming belongs to gamers, not NVIDIA.

I had talked to someone that went to the conference that talked to them and they said it was using the two DVI on one card and one DVI on the second card.

As you can see in this pic on the projector setup.
Those look like DVI to me :rockout




Also yes so far you will need to run it in SLI but like I already said that is still a cheaper solution then buying DP monitors. DP monitors are not cheap and for most people that have 2 monitors already they don't like the idea of miss matched displays. Or they go for the active adapter that soooooo many people are having issues with still.

Unless HardOCP are badly wrong in their reporting, those projectors are Acer 720p jobs that used 'CRT connectors' (aka: VGA or D-SUB) and not DVI.

that means they are using a dvi to vga adapter?

Unless HardOCP are badly wrong in their reporting, those projectors are Acer 720p jobs that used 'CRT connectors' (aka: VGA or D-SUB) and not DVI.

that means they are using a dvi to vga adapter?

Yep and either way would still be able to use DVI so......

[quote]

Unless HardOCP are badly wrong in their reporting, those projectors are Acer 720p jobs that used 'CRT connectors' (aka: VGA or D-SUB) and not DVI.

that means they are using a dvi to vga adapter?

Yep and either way would still be able to use DVI so......
Aye, which can only be a good thing.

ASSuming ATI comes out with the $20-$30 DP->DVI dongle/adapter.

does it really matter much :)

I should work on the Nvidia boards also :)

but I can only guess.

I have a 5970 with 3x1680x1050 monitors. I had the dpto vga adapter but went to a native dp monitor. The dell p2210. Paid $209 with free shipping. Then I got a monoprice mini dp to dp cable for 20 bucks. Total $240 with shipping. Sold my other 1680x1050 for $125. So I paid about 120 bucks to be totally set up for eyefinity. Also I have had the monitor for about 2-3 weeks and I have had ZERO droputs, ZERO screen goes on and off etc. That is going between extended and eyefinity and back. With the dp to vga adapter I was getting dropouts. Now it works just like it supposed to. Would like to see profiles work better and more games covered but pretty darn happy with the new tech. Native dp monitor made all the diff for me and it was $120 to do it. I have 3 diff monitors and 3 diff brands. All black though. When I am gaming I do not see if they match and I could care less. Two of them match colors very very close and the other is a tad off but not to the point where it matters.

As has been stated earlier in this thread, different people may use this technology different ways. I, for one, have no desire to use the 3D part of the technology. Not that it may not be good...it just doesn't work for me. My eyes won't accommodate it. I have Ambliopia, which is the technical term for "lazy eye". My right eye became dominant when I was very young, and a 3D application just doesn't give me a 3D "jump out of the screen at me" experience.

What I am interested in with this new technology is the ability to use one GPU to run 3 monitors in Surround Gaming without having to "dongle" everything with an interim hardware device like the TH2G. And at higher resolutions than my current Analog TH2G on three 19" monitors, without having to screw around with the 57Hz monitor rate fiasco. I never purchased the Digital TH2G or larger monitors yet because of those limitations.

If I'm reading this thread correctly, when the driver updates for the nVidia 200 cards are released I should be able to install the new driver and run three 24" 60Hz (not 120Hz, as I won't be using 3D) monitors in Surround Gaming mode (just like a TH2G) with (hopefully) ZERO problems. On one nVidia GPU.

Does that sound right?

Give me an nVidia driver update for my current GTX285 that will allow me to hook up three 24" monitors to it for Surround Gaming only (no 3D required), and I'm gonna be spending money on three new, larger monitors very quickly...without having to spend the $$$ on 120Hz monitors, etc.

As has been stated earlier in this thread, different people may use this technology different ways. I, for one, have no desire to use the 3D part of the technology. Not that it may not be good...it just doesn't work for me. My eyes won't accommodate it. I have Ambliopia, which is the technical term for "lazy eye". My right eye became dominant when I was very young, and a 3D application just doesn't give me a 3D "jump out of the screen at me" experience.

What I am interested in with this new technology is the ability to use one GPU to run 3 monitors in Surround Gaming without having to "dongle" everything with an interim hardware device like the TH2G. And at higher resolutions than my current Analog TH2G on three 19" monitors, without having to screw around with the 57Hz monitor rate fiasco. I never purchased the Digital TH2G or larger monitors yet because of those limitations.

If I'm reading this thread correctly, when the driver updates for the nVidia 200 cards are released I should be able to install the new driver and run three 24" 60Hz (not 120Hz, as I won't be using 3D) monitors in Surround Gaming mode (just like a TH2G) with (hopefully) ZERO problems. On one nVidia GPU.

Does that sound right?

Give me an nVidia driver update for my current GTX285 that will allow me to hook up three 24" monitors to it for Surround Gaming only (no 3D required), and I'm gonna be spending money on three new, larger monitors very quickly...without having to spend the $$$ on 120Hz monitors, etc.

You will need two cards in SLI.

You will need two cards in SLI.

Oh heck...I thought that was only required for the 3D side of it. But even if that is true, buying a second GTX285 would still be a viable option...IF it all worked without the hassles associated with the Digital TH2G and the 57Hz requirement for three 24" monitors.

[quote]You will need two cards in SLI.

Oh heck...I thought that was only required for the 3D side of it. But even if that is true, buying a second GTX285 would still be a viable option...IF it all worked without the hassles associated with the Digital TH2G and the 57Hz requirement for three 24" monitors.

Yep, that's the route I'm going. I happen to be Tri-SLI GTX260 right now, so I'm just waiting on drivers. I'll be glad to be rid of the Matrox GXM boxes if not simply for the fact that I can now use the displays to thier full potential without them being limited by a single video cable and a box that can't handle display maximum resolution. I am also hoping portrait rotation works, as I prefer the footprint of 3 24" in portrait mode on the desk.

Just an FYI to the thread:

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18298

And you'll need to have two high-end Nvidia graphics cards, either based on the upcoming GF100 GPU or the current GTX 200 series, because neither generation of GPU can drive more than two displays simultaneously.

Wow... well that sucks for anybody that had hopes of using the old tech! Good thing I wasn't waiting on that one...

So the nVidia solution requires two cards for three monitors and someone here is far happier to spend that amount on gpus that will be superceeded in six months/a year rather than the single card option and spend the difference on monitors that will last far longer?

I really fail to see the fuss here.

The nVidia 3 monitor 'solution' looks like something quickly put together rather than the purpose developed solution that we currently have from ATI.

So the nVidia solution requires two cards for three monitors and someone here is far happier to spend that amount on gpus that will be superceeded in six months/a year rather than the single card option and spend the difference on monitors that will last far longer?

That's kind of a rediculous statement, in my opinion. I've never gone SLI in the first place, because my "gaming" consists of the Flight Simulator series and various other "racing" simulators that really don't benefit from an SLI configuration in the first place. But I was totally willing to buy a TH2G years ago (the price of a second "high-end" video card) for the Surround Gaming experience it provides in both flying and racing sims.

So yes...if a 3-monitor wide capability is achievable with a second nVidia card in SLI, I see the purchase as no different than buying a TH2G.

Your comment is like saying someone was crazy for purchasing a second video card for SLI in the first place.

And the fact that ATI may already have a single GPU that can do it most certainly isn't a benefit to everybody. It has been documented numerous times ATI cards do not perform as well as nVidia cards for certain "gaming" situations. MS Flight Simulator is one of them. I have nothing inherently against ATI GPUs, but I won't buy one for Flight Simulator until they can perform to at least the same level as an nVidia card for FS.

Respectfully submitted, and no animosity intended towards any ATI afficiados or reps here.

Rick

So the nVidia solution requires two cards for three monitors and someone here is far happier to spend that amount on gpus that will be superceeded in six months/a year rather than the single card option and spend the difference on monitors that will last far longer?

I really fail to see the fuss here.

The nVidia 3 monitor 'solution' looks like something quickly put together rather than the purpose developed solution that we currently have from ATI.

It looks like SoftTripleHead.

Looking more like that every time there is some more info. :(

So what if the solution requires two cards? At least the capability is there, this is even better for us as games will now be streamlined to be able to use 3 displays in newer games. Plus plenty of people have 200 series card in SLI atm, so It's really just a "Value Added" Feature (haha, I coined a term from ati there). Plus how many people who use nvidea cards ever really only get one? Simply put, if you go with nVidea, you weren't getting your money's worth anyway.

Simply put, if you go with nVidea, you weren't getting your money's worth anyway.

If I went with ATI, Flight Simulator ran like a dog. Why would I build a "gaming" computer for Flight Simulator with all the latest technology in it, then put in a GPU that performed worse than a competitor's GPU for the "gaming" application I was going to run? And I'm no "newbie" computer user. I've done IT for over 30 years and have had my pilot's license for over 35 years.

It's all relative as to what "your money's worth" really means.

[quote] Simply put, if you go with nVidea, you weren't getting your money's worth anyway.

If I went with ATI, Flight Simulator ran like a dog. Why would I build a "gaming" computer for Flight Simulator with all the latest technology in it, then put in a GPU that performed worse than a competitor's GPU for the "gaming" application I was going to run? And I'm no "newbie" computer user. I've done IT for over 30 years and have had my pilot's license for over 35 years.

It's all relative as to what "your money's worth" really means.
It also depends on which game you are playing. But of course you know that anyway.

And the fact that ATI may already have a single GPU that can do it most certainly isn't a benefit to everybody. It has been documented numerous times ATI cards do not perform as well as nVidia cards for certain "gaming" situations. MS Flight Simulator is one of them. I have nothing inherently against ATI GPUs, but I won't buy one for Flight Simulator until they can perform to at least the same level as an nVidia card for FS.

I can't seem to find any recent performance comparisons for FlightSim X, but this HD 4850 review shows the relative modest solution outperforming higher priced NVIDIA cards in cases. [H]ardOCP also did an Eyefinity performance test using this title and shows that an HD 5870 can run in 3x 1900x1200 acceptibly with high settings.