3 x 30" displays in panorama - 3 video cards?

[Fun Guy]

So now that a 3 x 30" display space is not only within reach but easily done, the question is, 2 or 3 video cards?

Some of the latest motherboards have 3 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813188066 for example), so this is doable.

Comments?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

That's getting into pretty extreme territory, are you looking to game?

If not the answer is pretty easy and you don't really need to go all out to drive 3 monitors for a work load.

Otherwise you're definitely getting into pretty extreme territory where its hard to define the best course of action as there aren't going to be many who could give you a definitive answer or opinion based on first hand experience with such a setup.

For cost effective and "practical" solution I'd go 6990 + 6970 as its generally faster than your average 3 x GTX580 (although I really can't say its faster about a 3 x 30" setup), and it's also going to be much easier managing heat and power (get a cheaper motherboard with spaced out PCIe x16 slots to allow for better cooling to the "master" card. 3 x 6950s would be even cheaper still (and even faster if they are modifiable to 6970s) or 3 x 6970s for something faster.

However I'm sure benches of this regard are rare (I know there are some that measure 3 x 1920x1200 setups), and it ultimately might be better to go with a 3 x 3GB GTX580 setup as getting into that sort of resolution range is likely going to be murder even on a 2GB card (or likely even murder on a 3GB card) as 2560x1600 is over 12 million pixels, compare that to a triple 1920x1200 setup which is just under 7 million, and that setup pushes the limits of a 1.5GB GTX580.

You also might want to consider the 27" 2560x1440 displays, as they have a smaller pixel pitch which will help reduce aliasing (of which anti aliasing on such a massive setup isn't going to be performance friendly) and the 10% less pixels will also be better on overall performance.

That being said, if I had to guess on the ultimate setup, sparing no expenses, it would have to be something along the lines of multiple 3GB GTX 580s with a 990X, all watercooled and heavily overclocked, and if this is solely for gaming I'd even go with the 27" displays for the pixel pitch advantage I spelled out even though its cheaper and less resolution, although for work I'd definitely go 3 x 30".

 

[happy medium]

A gtx 580 3gb tri/quad sli setup is best for that.
And grab yourself a new Z68 board with 4x sli and a 2600k @ 5ghz.
They should be out in 2 weeks.

I remember a guy named Vega (i think) on Hard forum had the same setup.


Ah here it is. The ultimate setup.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1600522

 

[Madcatatlas]

I think we can all agree that 6990+6970 in Tri-CrossFire is both better than Tri-SLI and 500$ cheaper.
3gb cards will just make the price difference even worse for the Sli setup.


Here, dont take my word for it, read it/check it out yourself:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review

 

[3DVagabond]

I think we can all agree that 6990+6970 in Tri-CrossFire is both better than Tri-SLI and 500$ cheaper.
3gb cards will just make the price difference even worse for the Sli setup.


Here, dont take my word for it, read it/check it out yourself:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review

Some people are just grasping at straws, mate. The first review wasn't fair because it was based on price not number of GPU. The second test doesn't matter because it's a niche market. [H] is going to continue with various setups. Single 30" monitor is apparently up next. When/if they come up with a test that nVidia wins, THAT, will be the definitive test. It won't matter if it's twice as much for 10% more performance, or anything else. It's the one that will really matter and put all of this to bed once and for all.

Besides, who wants AMD? They don't have CUDA or PhysX. Oh, and how about that rebranded 6770? Really sucks, doesn't it. /sarc

 

[Aristotelian]

^^^ honestly. So 3x 580s in SLI under extreme cooling (did you see the core frequencies?) and a heavily overclocked 2600K.

Price of 3 580s + price of that cooling setup, compared to

Price of 6990 + 6970 + price of that cooling setup.

The latter would still be cheaper. Would it be faster? Reviews seem to say so. So, regarding 'ultimate setup', that's just a lazy inference. Again.

 

[NoQuarter]

Some people are just grasping at straws, mate. The first review wasn't fair because it was based on price not number of GPU. The second test doesn't matter because it's a niche market. [H] is going to continue with various setups. Single 30" monitor is apparently up next. When/if they come up with a test that nVidia wins, THAT, will be the definitive test. It won't matter if it's twice as much for 10% more performance, or anything else. It's the one that will really matter and put all of this to bed once and for all.

Besides, who wants AMD? They don't have CUDA or PhysX. Oh, and how about that rebranded 6770? Really sucks, doesn't it. /sarc

But this is the niche market the OP is looking to get into, so isn't that [H] review exactly relevant? The tri-6970 set up is faster and cheaper than tri-580 SLI for triple monitor gaming?

edit: Oh.. sorry missed the overt sarcasm in your post

 

[3DVagabond]

But this is the niche market the OP is looking to get into, so isn't that [H] review exactly relevant? The tri-6970 set up is faster and cheaper than tri-580 SLI for triple monitor gaming?

Oh.. sorry missed the overt sarcasm in your post

No, I'm not trying to go off topic. That's why I put the "/sarc" at the end. My point was all of these are just lame excuses that people come up with to try and make AMD look bad in comparison to nVidia. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It's been a long day and I'm not being cohesive trying to make my points it seems.

For the performance level you get from them, at their price, and even complexity level, the crossfire 6990/6970 setup is the best, period.

 

[NoQuarter]

No, I'm not trying to go off topic. That's why I put the "/sarc" at the end. My point was all of these are just lame excuses that people come up with to try and make AMD look bad in comparison to nVidia. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It's been a long day and I'm not being cohesive trying to make my points it seems.

For the performance level you get from them, at their price, and even complexity level, the crossfire 6990/6970 setup is the best, period.

Yea my fault, I thought you meant Madcatatlas was grasping at straws, totally misinterpreted your post.

Honestly I am really surprised the tri-6970 did so well. I'd been wary of doing CF for my Eyefinity set up because early results from 5xxx series on multi-monitor showed some deficiencies in CF but now they seem to be solid. I'll probably have to pick up a 2nd 6950 and unlock both with this line up of summer games coming.

 

[tommo123]

Besides, who wants AMD? They don't have CUDA or PhysX. Oh, and how about that rebranded 6770? Really sucks, doesn't it. /sarc

what good are physx and cuda? seriously? i own ati cards. what good will either do me? haven't seen anything, any effect in a game that's impressive

 

[sgrinavi]

OP, if you're planning on running three 1920 x 1080/1200 then you don't need three video cards..... just get a pair of top tier video cards in the color you prefer.

 

[nanaki333]

OP, if you're planning on running three 1920 x 1080/1200 then you don't need three video cards..... just get a pair of top tier video cards in the color you prefer.

yep. my 6970 xfire seems to handle the handful of games i've thrown at them in eyefinity.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I think we can all agree that 6990+6970 in Tri-CrossFire is both better than Tri-SLI and 500$ cheaper.
3gb cards will just make the price difference even worse for the Sli setup.


Here, dont take my word for it, read it/check it out yourself:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review

^^^ honestly. So 3x 580s in SLI under extreme cooling (did you see the core frequencies?) and a heavily overclocked 2600K.

Price of 3 580s + price of that cooling setup, compared to

Price of 6990 + 6970 + price of that cooling setup.

The latter would still be cheaper. Would it be faster? Reviews seem to say so. So, regarding 'ultimate setup', that's just a lazy inference. Again.

But this is the niche market the OP is looking to get into, so isn't that [H] review exactly relevant? The tri-6970 set up is faster and cheaper than tri-580 SLI for triple monitor gaming?

edit: Oh.. sorry missed the overt sarcasm in your post

None of you seem to be taking into account the fact that the OP is considering 2560x1600 x 3 = over 12 million pixels (12,288,000 to be exact), not a measly 1920x1200 x 3 = just under 7 million pixels (6,912,000). That is a HUGE difference, and unless you have evidence that suggests the 2GB of the Radeons will not be a bottle neck relative to 3GB GTX 580s @ 12MP resolutions, then it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the 3GB GTX 580s would realistically be the best if not only way to go.

And benchmarks from guys like Vega who Happy linked to previously tend to support that idea.

 

[Aristotelian]

None of you seem to be taking into account the fact that the OP is considering 2560x1600 x 3 = over 12 million pixels (12,288,000 to be exact), not a measly 1920x1200 x 3 = just under 7 million pixels (6,912,000). That is a HUGE difference, and unless you have evidence that suggests the 2GB of the Radeons will not be a bottle neck relative to 3GB GTX 580s @ 12MP resolutions, then it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the 3GB GTX 580s would realistically be the best if not only way to go.

And benchmarks from guys like Vega who Happy linked to previously tend to support that idea.

Benchmarks from guys like Vega (who have 1000 on a cpu, 1500 on the cards, 3600 on his monitors, and likely over 1000 on his sub zero liquid cooling setup) aren't really relevant in terms of almost any poster on the anandtech forums (save AdamK47, aigomoria and maybe a few others (who actually post)).

My point is that those aren't "3GB GTX580s" as such, they are under a sub zero liquid cooling setup with huge overclocks. And the benchmarks posted in this thread to suggest the 3GB GTX580s to the OP do not show an equivalent setup from AMD for comparison.

So, I don't think we're in the realm of 'normal' pc benchmarking here. Vega's setup cost about $12000 dollars. If the OP says he has that kind of budget, well then, we'll play. But for now I think that using Vega's benchmarking setup as a tool to decide which is better between 3x 580 3GB or a 6990 and a 6970 is meaningless.

In sum: I wouldn't look at a 12000 dollar computer setup to determine the outcome of the match I mentioned above. I wonder why [H] didn't use 3GB GTX580s in their review.

 

[Cerb]

Until the gaming question is answered, there's not much point. If not gaming, wouldn't any Radeon with several DPs/HDMIs do the job?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

that was exactly part of my point

proclaiming benchmark results of triple 6900s for a 3 x 1920x1200 setup as the basis for what the OP should do for a 3 x 2560x1600 setup is just as meaningless if not more so given that Vega's results really are the closest thing we have to work with when we legitimately consider such a setup (he also has numbers of 1.5GB 580s and even 6970s if we really care to dig them up)

Like I said before, find more relevant benchmarks to suggest the exemplary Radeon 6900 Crossfire performance at 7 mega pixels holds up when we consider 12+MP and then we can really begin to talk, but right now we're still pretty much in pioneering territory.

 

[n0x1ous]

the 6970s are a better value than the 580's, but if the OP is serious about 3 x 30 inch then he NEEDS to get the 3gb GTX 580. Vega mentions at this resolution he uses up to 2.9 GB of Vram at this resolution on some games and over 2 GB in many games.

If an AMD partner make a 3 or 4gb non reference design then that would certainly be an option for this as well, although I think the crossfire bridge bandwidth issue would come into play regardless for AMD here.

So from what we know, at this EXTREME resolution, 3GB of VRAM is necessary as well as sufficient multi gpu bandwidth which would point the OP to 3gb GTX 580's in this extreme case.

In most mulimonitor cases, the 6970/6950 would be the better choice.

 

[Rifter]

the 2GB of the ATI cards will become a issue if gaming, as mentioned above. 3 30" displays is a huge amount of pixels and will require massive amounts of vram when using AA and other effects/eye candy. The 580 tri fire would probably be the best option.

If not gaming then a ATI card with the right outputs would definatly be more cost effective.

 

[Skurge]

When are you buying? If you are only buying in a few months AMD is going to talk about their 7series at E3 so you might get a projected launch date.

I would Also wait on bulldozer as its likely to have mobos better suited to SLI or Crossfire than SB.

As for the cards. I wouldn't get more than 2 cards tbh. Either 2x 3gb 580s or 6990+6970 for the same price. The AMD setup would be faster as you wont have the crossfire bridge problem with 2 cards.

 

[SlowSpyder]

A gtx 580 3gb tri/quad sli setup is best for that.
And grab yourself a new Z68 board with 4x sli and a 2600k @ 5ghz.
They should be out in 2 weeks.

I remember a guy named Vega (i think) on Hard forum had the same setup.


Ah here it is. The ultimate setup.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1600522

How do we know that's the 'ultimate setup'? I don't see it compared to three 6970's/6970 + 6990 anywhere. According to Hardocp they tested with settings that were not memory limited, and the AMD setup was faster, cheaper, and less power hungry. Of course that was a lower resolution. I would certainly like to see 30" monitors used in a review from a decent hardware site.

And when you failed to mention that those scores are with the GPU's at over 1GHz (more than a 30% overclock) That's fairly misleading, don't you think?

 

[n0x1ous]

How do we know that's the 'ultimate setup'? I don't see it compared to three 6970's/6970 + 6990 anywhere. According to Hardocp they tested with settings that were not memory limited, and the AMD setup was faster, cheaper, and less power hungry. Of course that was a lower resolution. I would certainly like to see 30" monitors used in a review from a decent hardware site.

And when you failed to mention that those scores are with the GPU's at over 1GHz (more than a 30% overclock) That's fairly misleading, don't you think?

Its just trying to show scaling performance therefor GPU core clock doesn't really have much to do with it. The graph is about scaling, not overall performance. Vega had 4 6970's....doesnt fly at that rez due to the limiting serial nature of the crossfire bridges. Until the AMD bridge is redesigned we won't be able to fairly compare this setup

 

[aigomorla]

So now that a 3 x 30" display space is not only within reach but easily done, the question is, 2 or 3 video cards?

Some of the latest motherboards have 3 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813188066 for example), so this is doable.

Comments?

are you going to gaming in EyeFinity / 2d Stereo?

Or you just a web site browser / Productivity user that requires the large realestate?

That would answer if u need 1, 2 or 3 cards.

 

[RussianSensation]

So now that a 3 x 30" display space is not only within reach but easily done, the question is, 2 or 3 video cards?

Some of the latest motherboards have 3 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813188066 for example), so this is doable.

Comments?

A single HD6990 or GTX590 isnt' fast enough to drive 3x 2560x1600 displays in modern games. Techspot just did a Triple-Monitor review. Even 3 GTX580s or 3x HD6970 won't be enough for modern games at such a resolution. I suggest you wait for Kepler or HD7000 series before you drop $1500 on graphics cards that still won't be fast enough or lower your expectations in regard to AA, settings.

the 2GB of the ATI cards will become a issue if gaming, as mentioned above. 3 30" displays is a huge amount of pixels and will require massive amounts of vram when using AA and other effects/eye candy. The 580 tri fire would probably be the best option.

The reason 7680x1600 (3x 30 inch monitors) will become an issue is not because of 2GBs of VRAM. A single HD6990 can only master up 26 fps in BF:BC2, 20 fps in Crysis 1 and only 8 fps in Crysis 2. ... You need something a lot faster than GTX580s or HD6970s in Tri-Fire to play games on 3x 2560x1600 monitors. Think about it, you can't max out some modern games with 4AA 2560x1600 on a single 580 or a 6970 (like Metro 2033). Therefore, it's only logical that 3 580s won't do that either since SLI doesn't scale 100% with 3 cards. It will require Kepler or HD7000 series GPU horsepower to do this - and VRAM above 2GB has little to do with it when you are starving for GPU horsepower.

 

[3DVagabond]

None of you seem to be taking into account the fact that the OP is considering 2560x1600 x 3 = over 12 million pixels (12,288,000 to be exact), not a measly 1920x1200 x 3 = just under 7 million pixels (6,912,000). That is a HUGE difference, and unless you have evidence that suggests the 2GB of the Radeons will not be a bottle neck relative to 3GB GTX 580s @ 12MP resolutions, then it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the 3GB GTX 580s would realistically be the best if not only way to go.

And benchmarks from guys like Vega who Happy linked to previously tend to support that idea.

This is a valid hypothesis. We don't know what you'd be pushing the settings to in order to run the 6900's dry, but it might be possible to do? In theory, the 580's could be better.

 

[happy medium]

So now that a 3 x 30" display space is not only within reach but easily done

This is why I suggested the 3g gtx580 x 3 or 4. This statement tells me he has the money to EASILY buy 3 1,200$ monitors and wants the best at any cost.

Couple with a 2600k @ 4.8, top of the line Z68 motherboard with 16gb of memory, and he should be dandy.