can 2 GTX460s Drive 3 monitors?

[tnewnham]

I was wanting to upgrade GPUs soon but i heard an interesting Fact about Keplar later this year and decided i might get 3 monitors now then get New GPUs after the first of the year.

So the question is will 2 1GB SC 460's in SLI be able to Drive 3 monitors at 5760X1080??

I will be playing Crysis and Warhead at super low settings i know, I also play Need for speed hot pursuit (only 2 games i have time for lol) my game list will grow as the year goes on but for now thats all i got and or play the most. I do have metro, black ops, and BFBC2 but i do not play them often.

I would love new monitors now but if i have to wait so be it.

now i do know ahead of time that i will not be able to play on max settings on any game with my 460s in surround..

[scavvenjahh]

Surround w/ 1 GB SLI can be a problem indeed, but it depends quite a lot on the game.

-Crysis craves GPU power and VRAM, but maybe low settings will be playable ?
-NFS Hot Pursuit is SLI-unfriendly and sucks big time in Surround. :(
-Metro2033 requires a lot of muscle in Surround, maybe lowering both settings and resolution might help... a bit.
-CoD:BO and BF:BC2 should be performing noticeably better.

Always a good read : NVIDIA GTX460 in Surround: 1GB vs. 2GB - Featured Review

[Paradigm Shifter]

Pretty much what scavv said, but I'll expand where I can.

Crysis runs "OK" at medium settings in Surround. It will chug in spots (like when the ice appears).
Metro 2033 requires lots of GPU muscle period. In Surround it's absolute murder - lowest details, probably even turning the res down to 3840x720 might be needed.
Black Ops should be OK
Battlefield Bad Company 2, unless you're running Vietnam, has some nasty crashes occurring in Surround. You'd basically be lucky to complete a round, even if it was a quick one. :(

[tnewnham]

Well this is Sad to hear :( I guess ill just wait it out and update GPUs later this year and get monitors as well.

NFS however i played at a local frys on the Samsung multi monitor setup on an AlienWare with 1 5870 in eyefinity and it Ran perfectly. So i guess NFS is more Radeon friendly??

[scavvenjahh]

It's totally a multi-GPU issue: the framerate plummets as soon as SLI/Crossfire in enabled, regardless of the resolution. So yes, 1-GPU Eyefinity users have no such problem.

[Paradigm Shifter]

The 2GB cards are a lot more surround friendly; the limiting factor there is raw GPU power, not VRAM... except in the cases of Crysis on max details, and Metro 2033... :(

[tnewnham]

I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

[BHawthorne]

I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

Uh, I don't follow that line of logic. The overall pixel count the card pushes doesn't magically change landscape vs portrait modes.

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels
3240x1920 = 6,220,800 pixels...

[fuzioninfinity]

Battlefield Bad Company 2, unless you're running Vietnam, has some nasty crashes occurring in Surround. You'd basically be lucky to complete a round, even if it was a quick one. :(

I haven't had any issues in Bad Company 2 at all, Vietnam or the main game in surround. I just got done playing Vietnam for about 5 hours, not one crash.

[Paradigm Shifter]

[quote]
Battlefield Bad Company 2, unless you're running Vietnam, has some nasty crashes occurring in Surround. You'd basically be lucky to complete a round, even if it was a quick one. :(

I haven't had any issues in Bad Company 2 at all, Vietnam or the main game in surround. I just got done playing Vietnam for about 5 hours, not one crash.
Um... because you were playing Vietnam? I can't even go for 20 minutes in Surround in vanilla BC2 without it crashing. On the same rig with Surround disabled, its fine for hours. eZ` has the same problem.

[tnewnham]

[quote]I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

Uh, I don't follow that line of logic. The overall pixel count the card pushes doesn't magically change landscape vs portrait modes.

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels
3240x1920 = 6,220,800 pixels...

yea i caught that after i posted it idk why i thought it would be anydifferent as i was typing it hha

[suiken_2mieu]

[quote][quote]I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

Uh, I don't follow that line of logic. The overall pixel count the card pushes doesn't magically change landscape vs portrait modes.

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels
3240x1920 = 6,220,800 pixels...

yea i caught that after i posted it idk why i thought it would be anydifferent as i was typing it hha
No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

[BHawthorne]

No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

If anything portrait rotation is harder on the rendering pipeline because it adds in the rotation mechanic into the rendering. Portrait almost always sees more tearing than it's landscape counterpart.

[fuzioninfinity]

[quote][quote]
Battlefield Bad Company 2, unless you're running Vietnam, has some nasty crashes occurring in Surround. You'd basically be lucky to complete a round, even if it was a quick one. :(

I haven't had any issues in Bad Company 2 at all, Vietnam or the main game in surround. I just got done playing Vietnam for about 5 hours, not one crash.
Um... because you were playing Vietnam? I can't even go for 20 minutes in Surround in vanilla BC2 without it crashing. On the same rig with Surround disabled, its fine for hours. eZ` has the same problem.

What kind of "crashes" are you guys experiencing? I get random black screens in Bad Company 2 running the 266.58 drivers, which required a reboot, but using the 260.99 drivers I have no issues in Bad Company 2 as far as crashes go.

[suiken_2mieu]

[quote]
No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

If anything portrait rotation is harder on the rendering pipeline because it adds in the rotation mechanic into the rendering. Portrait almost always sees more tearing than it's landscape counterpart.
Well this is from a completely qualitative, non-put into numbers, not really tested hardcore experience. When I'd go from 3x1 L to 3x1 P I'd always have performance jump. I generally see tearing when I get MORE than 60 fps not less. Hence this may be why you're seeing more tearing. I also almost always use v-sync.

[scavvenjahh]

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

No, because a Hor+ game in landscape does not become Vert+ in portrait. ;) In a Hor+ game, 3xP is less polygons because it's just narrower than 3xL. The pixel count is the same, but the amount of objects to be rendered (on the sides) is drastically reduced.

3x 16:10 = 4.8
3x 10:16 = 1.875 (only slightly wider than 16:9)

[Paradigm Shifter]

I'd just like to say that you need to consider that it will depend strongly on the game.

Also, by the time you get to 5x1L, the two side monitors will be seriously fisheyed by default, resulting in a far lower poly count on them.

[suiken_2mieu]

I'd just like to say that you need to consider that it will depend strongly on the game.

Also, by the time you get to 5x1L, the two side monitors will be seriously fisheyed by default, resulting in a far lower poly count on them.

This I have experience on, and yes you are correct, they are soooooo fish eyed that there may on;y be a few objects on screen. But then again, When I went 5x1P i got a boost in FPS (by quite a lot).

[Paradigm Shifter]

FOV seems to have an impact outright. Used to find that with Jedi Knight 2 in the early days of widescreening - if I played at 117 degrees (which I preferred, despite being 'too high' an FOV) then the FPS were about 10-15% lower than if I played it at 90 degrees (the default). Whether that is reproducible on modern GPUs I don't know; might try it if I get the chance. That was back on a 64MB Radeon 9000 Mobility so it wasn't exactly a powerful GPU. ;) I still gamed on it at 1680x1050 for several years, though. :D

[Disco_And]

I have gtx 460 1gb sli with 3 monitors and all games run fine for me but i'm only in 5350X1050, metro 2033 is not at very high anymore and i also have no AA on most games but thats ok, playing with 3 monitors is better then one :D