Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hi,

Thanks to imurst's guidance, I have settled on the three screens i'm going to use for a triple setup: 22-32-22 PLP.

BUT, I'd like some further opinions/discussion about which card to run these on. It seems that the R9 285 is the most "native" for a PLP setup. But it's a fair bit older now (not too terribly old)... The R9 380 is, i guess, a newer version of the 285, with little more power needed and twice the VRAM essentially - except I'm reading about how it's drivers AREN'T natively supporting PLP... And if i'm going to consider running a card that doesn't support it out of the box, should I be considering a GTX 970, 4GB??? I would be willing to run CFX with the 285's (coming from an SLI setup now), but how practical would that be, in terms of price/performance, but including PLP support?

(I do some moderate video editing and play games - i was planning on using an older 1400x900 additional monitor for some sims, some of the time.)

Thanks for all your input and ideas. Don't want to start a nvidia/amd war here - just want to hear what might be the best two or three options to choose from. Thanks again!

Xak


EDIT: Also, trying to keep cost down as much as possible. I would do the 380 only if it was a 4GB with AND PLP'able.

The 970 3.5gb you mean
I can never recommend this card, better look at the 980.

If you're looking at AMD then maybe in a few weeks new drivers for will add plp support to the 380.
There is also the AMD fury to look at, though only 4gb VRAM its HBM and you can run 12'000x2160 with a fury Crossfire setup.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/rade ... ra-hd-12k/
(its German, sorry)

But yeah... If anyhow possible never go for a Crossfire setup. It only works in 85% of the games and comes 2-3 weeks after game release.
Witcher 3 still has this lightning flackering when Crossfire is activated. (not that SLI would be any better....)

haha, yes, the 3.5GB, exactly. I know, i know, but based on articles i've read, i don't think it'll effect my usage though... Is there a reason you say "maybe in a few weeks new drivers will" come out for amd with PLP support for the 380? Are there reports from AMD that they will in fact be doing this? Because we could all just be "waiting a few more weeks" indefinitely..... :\

I don't think i'm able to afford the 980 GPU class or the Fury either.

Two other questions:
1) Are most ppl using SoftTH if they're not on a R9 285?
2) When CFX/SLI in trip monitor, do ppl keep all monitors on one card, or center on 1st GPU and sides on 2nd GPU?

Haldi wrote:The 970 3.5gb you mean
I can never recommend this card, better look at the 980.

If you're looking at AMD then maybe in a few weeks new drivers for will add plp support to the 380.
There is also the AMD fury to look at, though only 4gb VRAM its HBM and you can run 12'000x2160 with a fury Crossfire setup.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/rade ... ra-hd-12k/
(its German, sorry)

But yeah... If anyhow possible never go for a Crossfire setup. It only works in 85% of the games and comes 2-3 weeks after game release.
Witcher 3 still has this lightning flackering when Crossfire is activated. (not that SLI would be any better....)

Well yeah, if you're lucky the 3.5gb wont affect you... But what if?

You 'probably' wont wait a few weeks indefinitely, but it might be a few months. No one knows!

If you use AMD Crossfire it is mandatory to connect ALL monitors to one GPU.
Nvidia SLI allows (or sometimes forces) you to connect monitors to both GPUs

Xak, 22-32-22 is great choice. But if you have not yet purchased, then wait a second.

The wiki layouts are very out of date ATM (working on it offline next few days, so live soon).
There are details (layout variations) for your layout that you should know about, which aren't on wiki ATM. This may impact your final monitor purchase choices.

There are 4 different variations of your 22-32-22, depending on what viewable-size monitors your purchase. Each resulting layout is slightly different (shape, PPI lineup/monitor positioning/hide-a-bezel). I will give you details shortly for your informed decision.

Regarding graphics card, your chosen layout is not heavy (being of low PPI of ~69, & fairly low total gaming pixels of 3,801,600). FYI wiki requirements blurb for your layout (probably not yet on wiki):
- "Manual PLP: 1 decent graphics card runs it fairly well. Maxing heavy games requires strong overclock, so purchase wisely (not necessarily new). 1 high-end graphics card is slight overkill, but bulletproof for heavy games & is somewhat future-proof."
(This is why I was suggesting R9 380 if on budget & want Fairly Good card. You don't need R9 Fury X for this layout, bit overkill. I don't know Nvidia equivalents.)

By the way there is a heavy higher PPI version of this exact shape & size, also with 4 variations. It's twice as heavy, twice the pixels. If you ever wanted, you could upgrade to it (uses same sides but different center). FYI wiki requirements blurb for this heavy version:
- "Manual PLP: 1 extreme graphics card (or high-end & overclocked) runs it decent. Regularly not playing maxed, & heavy games may not run ideally."
- "Eyefinity PLP: 2 high-end graphics cards runs it well. 3 high-end cards for elitist, maxing heavy games, bit overkill."

imurst and Haldi - thank you again. I did already receive my 22" monitors. Sorry - i didn't understand there were more variables to consider ; I have x2 ASUS 22" VW22AT-CSM, 1680 x 1050, 0.282mm pitch. Hope they'll work out - I could return if critical, but would be a little bit of a pain, but not impossible.

Biggest challenge is deciding on the card . I'm very seriously considering XFX's BLACK edition of the R9 285 - even considering two unless you all suggest it's a bad call. I have a (4 year old) 1000 watt PSU from Cougar that I believe has been treating me well. BUT, is the 285 a little too old to consider now?

Yes, the 380 WOULD be sweet - little more future-proof, but so far no PLP out-of-the-box, unless I misunderstand.

I'm no longer considering nvidia's 960 - no reason (imho) that new (gaming/video editing) card buyers should consider less than 256-bit bus anymore; prices for 256-bit or better are too reasonably priced now to consider going less imo.....

However, if the 380 isn't going to PLP any nicer than other cards and you all suggest the 285 is a bad bet, I would then have to go with a nvidia 970. Why the hell won't the manufacturers see that PLP has become more and more in demand??? Sigh

......I'm thinking i'm gonna do XFX's 285 this coming week if no one can solidly convince me otherwise.

Thank you again, WSGF'ers, for all suggestions and insights.

Xak

Nice side monitor choice. Don't worry, the layout variations are a matter of taste. It's not an actual problem.

Re AMD cards:
- Very strong chance that R9 380 supports PLP. Maybe needs a new driver update, but it will very likely work. A good gamble. I'd be very tempted, a promising adventure.
- R9 285 will run your PLP setup decent. But you will not be maxing heavy games. Everything else will run perfect maxed. Card's life will be bit short, but acceptable. BTW I recently tested Club3D R9 285 on your exact resolution, so have accurate idea of its performance. Though I did not overclock beyond its boosted stock clock.

Re crossfire:
- I'd skip it at first. Even with R9 285, you don't really need it immediately. I'd put it off a couple years, then reconsider it.

Here's image & snippet describing relevant layouts (ignore wiki coding). The first one is yours (yours sides are 22" viewable). The second (related) layout would have required 21.5" viewable sides (which are uncommon). The second layout has closer PPI match, but 22" sides are slightly bigger & PPI remains safe for correction. So which wins? Dunno. I'll post a link in few days once it's live, if interest.

Ah I forgot about 21.6". These are more common than 21.5", & will act very similarly to 21.5" (close PPI match on center & sides). I will post all 3 layout links once live. BTW all these monitor sizes are commonly marketed as 22" class size, so bit confusing.

* Notice the positioning note. It is how you will achieve pixel line-up. Don't worry, it will look great. And if your center's bezels are thin, you may be able to hide a bezel.... But I doubt it.


== 22-31.5-22 Center:1920x1080 Shape:060ALT2 ==
Perceived Shape: Center feels semi-wide & semi-short. Sides have medium width.
* Center
:* 31.5" viewable, 1920x1080 (16:9)
:* ~69.93 PPI
* Sides
:* 22" viewable, 1680x1050 (16:10)
:* Use non-stock resolution: 22" viewable, 1280x800 (16:10)
:* ~68.61 PPI
:* Position inner edge very noticeably backward of center's bezel, likely still remaining bezel-to-bezel (but small chance of hide-a-bezel if small bezels).
:* Total hang past center screen: ~3.01"
* Final gaming area
:* Width: ~46.1"
:* Height: ~15.4"
:* Resolution: 3520x1080 at ~69.93 PPI
:* Pixel count: '''3,801,600''' (weight level 2/25)
:* Aspect ratio: 3.259259259 = 88:27, ~21:6.443, ~16:4.909
:* PPI variance: ~1.32. This produces ~8mm total accumulated image variance, which falls within correctable range.
* Notes
<font size="-1" color="808080">:* MARKET
::* Center 31.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#31.5 Inch 1920x1080 (16:9) | examples]].
::* Sides 22" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#22 Inch 1680x1050 (16:10) | examples]].
:* REQUIREMENTS
::* Manual PLP: 1 decent graphics card runs it fairly well. Maxing heavy games requires strong overclock, so purchase wisely (not necessarily new). 1 high-end graphics card is slight overkill, but bulletproof for heavy games & is somewhat future-proof.</font>

== 21.5-31.5-21.5 Center:1920x1080 Shape:060ALT2 ==
Perceived Shape: Center feels semi-wide & semi-short. Sides have medium width.
* Center
:* 31.5" viewable, 1920x1080 (16:9)
:* ~69.93 PPI
* Sides
:* 21.5" viewable, 1680x1050 (16:10)
:* Use non-stock resolution: 21.5" viewable, 1280x800 (16:10)
:* ~70.21 PPI
:* Position inner edge flush or near-flush with center's bezel, remaining bezel-to-bezel.
:* Total hang past center screen: ~2.59"
* Final gaming area
:* Width: ~45.7"
:* Height: ~15.4"
:* Resolution: 3520x1080 at ~69.93 PPI
:* Pixel count: '''3,801,600''' (weight level 2/25)
:* Aspect ratio: 3.259259259 = 88:27, ~21:6.443, ~16:4.909
:* PPI variance: ~0.28. '''Close match''' & minimal or no accumulated image variance. Monitors flush or near-flush.
* Notes
<font size="-1" color="808080">:* MARKET
::* Center 31.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#31.5 Inch 1920x1080 (16:9) | examples]].
::* Sides 21.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#21.5 Inch 1680x1050 (16:10) | examples]].
:* REQUIREMENTS
::* Manual PLP: 1 decent graphics card runs it fairly well. Maxing heavy games requires strong overclock, so purchase wisely (not necessarily new). 1 high-end graphics card is slight overkill, but bulletproof for heavy games & is somewhat future-proof.</font>

OK, great! Thank you imurst

Then my plan is to grab a XFX BLACK R9 285. And if after having read several recent articles, I understand correctly, the newer AMD drivers allow a R9 2xx and R9 3xx to work in CFX. If so, then when the time is right/I feel like I'm needing more graphics power, I could add either a 2xx or 3xx series card if I feel Ithe need to increase performance a bit.

Thank you again for your detailed input on this process. I doubt I would have come this far without your help!

I'll write something again on here once the card arrives and is installed. My monitor arms for the sides should be here next week, too.

Xak

imusrt wrote:Nice side monitor choice. Don't worry, the layout variations are a matter of taste. It's not an actual problem.

Re AMD cards:
- Very strong chance that R9 380 supports PLP. Maybe needs a new driver update, but it will very likely work. A good gamble. I'd be very tempted, a promising adventure.
- R9 285 will run your PLP setup decent. But you will not be maxing heavy games. Everything else will run perfect maxed. Card's life will be bit short, but acceptable. BTW I recently tested Club3D R9 285 on your exact resolution, so have accurate idea of its performance. Though I did not overclock beyond its boosted stock clock.

Re crossfire:
- I'd skip it at first. Even with R9 285, you don't really need it immediately. I'd put it off a couple years, then reconsider it.

Here's image & snippet describing relevant layouts (ignore wiki coding). The first one is yours (yours sides are 22" viewable). The second (related) layout would have required 21.5" viewable sides (which are uncommon). The second layout has closer PPI match, but 22" sides are slightly bigger & PPI remains safe for correction. So which wins? Dunno. I'll post a link in few days once it's live, if interest.

Ah I forgot about 21.6". These are more common than 21.5", & will act very similarly to 21.5" (close PPI match on center & sides). I will post all 3 layout links once live. BTW all these monitor sizes are commonly marketed as 22" class size, so bit confusing.

* Notice the positioning note. It is how you will achieve pixel line-up. Don't worry, it will look great. And if your center's bezels are thin, you may be able to hide a bezel.... But I doubt it.

Shape060ALT2 1920x1080 1280x800 PLP.jpg

== 22-31.5-22 Center:1920x1080 Shape:060ALT2 ==
Perceived Shape: Center feels semi-wide & semi-short. Sides have medium width.
* Center
:* 31.5" viewable, 1920x1080 (16:9)
:* ~69.93 PPI
* Sides
:* 22" viewable, 1680x1050 (16:10)
:* Use non-stock resolution: 22" viewable, 1280x800 (16:10)
:* ~68.61 PPI
:* Position inner edge very noticeably backward of center's bezel, likely still remaining bezel-to-bezel (but small chance of hide-a-bezel if small bezels).
:* Total hang past center screen: ~3.01"
* Final gaming area
:* Width: ~46.1"
:* Height: ~15.4"
:* Resolution: 3520x1080 at ~69.93 PPI
:* Pixel count: '''3,801,600''' (weight level 2/25)
:* Aspect ratio: 3.259259259 = 88:27, ~21:6.443, ~16:4.909
:* PPI variance: ~1.32. This produces ~8mm total accumulated image variance, which falls within correctable range.
* Notes
<font size="-1" color="808080">:* MARKET
::* Center 31.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#31.5 Inch 1920x1080 (16:9) | examples]].
::* Sides 22" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#22 Inch 1680x1050 (16:10) | examples]].
:* REQUIREMENTS
::* Manual PLP: 1 decent graphics card runs it fairly well. Maxing heavy games requires strong overclock, so purchase wisely (not necessarily new). 1 high-end graphics card is slight overkill, but bulletproof for heavy games & is somewhat future-proof.</font>

== 21.5-31.5-21.5 Center:1920x1080 Shape:060ALT2 ==
Perceived Shape: Center feels semi-wide & semi-short. Sides have medium width.
* Center
:* 31.5" viewable, 1920x1080 (16:9)
:* ~69.93 PPI
* Sides
:* 21.5" viewable, 1680x1050 (16:10)
:* Use non-stock resolution: 21.5" viewable, 1280x800 (16:10)
:* ~70.21 PPI
:* Position inner edge flush or near-flush with center's bezel, remaining bezel-to-bezel.
:* Total hang past center screen: ~2.59"
* Final gaming area
:* Width: ~45.7"
:* Height: ~15.4"
:* Resolution: 3520x1080 at ~69.93 PPI
:* Pixel count: '''3,801,600''' (weight level 2/25)
:* Aspect ratio: 3.259259259 = 88:27, ~21:6.443, ~16:4.909
:* PPI variance: ~0.28. '''Close match''' & minimal or no accumulated image variance. Monitors flush or near-flush.
* Notes
<font size="-1" color="808080">:* MARKET
::* Center 31.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#31.5 Inch 1920x1080 (16:9) | examples]].
::* Sides 21.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#21.5 Inch 1680x1050 (16:10) | examples]].
:* REQUIREMENTS
::* Manual PLP: 1 decent graphics card runs it fairly well. Maxing heavy games requires strong overclock, so purchase wisely (not necessarily new). 1 high-end graphics card is slight overkill, but bulletproof for heavy games & is somewhat future-proof.</font>

Here are specs for 21.6-31.5-21.6 (related PLP layout) for your interest. This viewable size is nearly as common as 22" sides. For aesthetic perfectionists, this layout would be sought after because monitors will line up flush bezel-to-bezel (still with hang though). I'm sorry I didn't get this info to you before your purchase. But your 22" viewable sides will work well too, & offer a slim chance of hiding a bezel. It is a false belief that perfect PPI match is needed for PLP, your monitors do NOT need to be flush. Makes zero difference in games, within a "correctable range." PPI just needs to be close (How close is needed depends on the total accumulated image variance, which changes with pixel size. Your specific layout meets requirements.)

== 21.6-31.5-21.6 Center:1920x1080 Shape:060ALT2 ==
Perceived Shape: Center feels semi-wide & semi-short. Sides have medium width.'''
* Center
:* 31.5" viewable, 1920x1080 (16:9)
:* ~69.93 PPI
* Sides
:* 21.6" viewable, 1680x1050 (16:10)
:* Use non-stock resolution: 21.6" viewable, 1280x800 (16:10)
:* ~69.88 PPI
:* Position inner edge flush with center's bezel, remaining bezel-to-bezel.
:* Total hang past center screen: ~2.67"
* Final gaming area
:* Width: ~45.8"
:* Height: ~15.4"
:* Resolution: 3520x1080, perceived overall as ~69.93 PPI
:* Pixel count: '''3,801,600''' (weight level 2/25)
:* Aspect ratio: 3.259259259 = 88:27, ~21:6.443, ~16:4.909
:* PPI variance: ~0.05. '''Close match''' & minimal or no accumulated image variance. Monitors flush or near-flush.
* Notes
<font size="-1" color="808080">:* MARKET
::* Center 31.5" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#31.5 Inch 1920x1080 (16:9) | examples]].
::* Sides 21.6" viewable, [[Monitors By Viewable Size#21.6 Inch 1680x1050 (16:10) | examples]].
::* '''Be aware:''' Monitors marketed as 32" 1920x1080 are always/almost always 31.5" viewable. Monitors marketed as 22" 1680x1050 are fairly often 21.6" viewable, & rarely 21.5" viewable.