Multiple Monitor Pics...

[mnewsham]

30 is console dude..
if you want 30, you can get that on a console.

45+ with full eye candy is what defines PC gaming.

and there is a big difference between 30 vs 45+ .

Its not going to happen on your gpu's. And it takes 2 580's to do it flawlessly on a 24. 1920x1200.

The Op wants 30, im thinking massive ram first off, and at least 3 570's in tri sli, or 2 580's or 2 top end ATI cards.

What? 1920x1200 can get 60+ fps in almost any game on a 570 saying it takes 580's is just wrong, unless you are talking 3x 1920x1080

 

[Idontcare]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPCJh8tYri0

I use dual screens and the bezel thing doesn't bother me a lick, but the way the game gets distorted in the x-axis while remaining undistorted in the y-axis (up and down) is really annoying to me.

That's not how peripheral vision works, not sure why they do that in the game, that would be a show-stopper for me. Are they all like that or is it something you can change in the video options?

 

[aigomorla]

What? 1920x1200 can get 60+ fps in almost any game on a 570 saying it takes 580's is just wrong, unless you are talking 3x 1920x1080

really?

then something is really wrong with my fallout new vegas and other games im playing.

Im not getting the 45+ with everything blown up constant. Which is why im half close in stealing the other 580GTX on my other system to fix it.

I was on Quadfire b4 i went Nvidia.

I estimated with 2, i shouldnt get the shutter i see at times.

And i play at 1920x1200.

 

[mnewsham]

really?

then something is really wrong with my fallout new vegas and other games im playing.

Im not getting the 45+ with everything blown up constant. Which is why im half close in stealing the other 580GTX on my other system to fix it.

I was on Quadfire b4 i went Nvidia.

I estimated with 2, i shouldnt get the shutter i see at times.

And i play at 1920x1200.

I can push most of my games on my laptop to 45+ at 1920x1080

 

[aigomorla]

I can push most of my games on my laptop to 45+ at 1920x1080

you know what u may be right.. im looking at benchmarks and i should be getting over 60..

Errr... BRB while i try a new driver install.

I still tho think for a 30incher ur gonna need SLI.

 

[mnewsham]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/305?vs=306

the 570 vs 580 they both get around 40-50 at 1920x1200 in the most intense games. in BF:BC2 they get 70+

 

[Anomaly1964]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/305?vs=306

the 570 vs 580 they both get around 40-50 at 1920x1200 in the most intense games. In bf:bc2 they get 70+

booyah!

 

[mnewsham]

booyah!

Yes but at 2560x1600 you are still only getting 30-40 in most games.

 

[Sebein]

you know what u may be right.. im looking at benchmarks and i should be getting over 60..

Errr... BRB while i try a new driver install.

I still tho think for a 30incher ur gonna need SLI.

Ya for i 30'' i would go sli/xfire if you want to run everyting at max. One 580 would work in a lot of place but would lack in some game i guess... but like i said i run dead space 2 with over 120 fps with a 570 @2560x1440 ....even if its not the highest demanding game i only really lack on metro 2033

 

[Anomaly1964]

Yes but at 2560x1600 you are still only getting 30-40 in most games.

How many FPS can the human eye see, not how many can a benchmark measure?

 

[mnewsham]

How many FPS can the human eye see, not how many can a benchmark measure?

60Hz monitor = 60FPS you will see so if you are getting 70FPS it wont mean crap. But at 60hz you will notice anything under 60FPS but i find it playable at 45+

 

[Sebein]

How many FPS can the human eye see, not how many can a benchmark measure?

trust me i see the difference between 30-45 and even 45-60 but i see it less pass 45-50

 

[dpodblood]

How many FPS can the human eye see, not how many can a benchmark measure?

Haha you're going to start another huge debate. A lot of people will say you can't notice greater than 60 FPS, but everyone's eyes are different. You will just have to test that for yourself an find out what your eyes are like.

 

[aigomorla]

Haha you're going to start another huge debate. A lot of people will say you can't notice greater than 60 FPS, but everyone's eyes are different. You will just have to test that for yourself an find out what your eyes are like.

yeah but the arguement is you should get at least 45+

as others say, its the perfect spot in pc gaming.

30->45 u notice it.. 45->60 very difficult, but u can... anything past 60, well not unless ur a navy seal sharp shooter, or your eyes have been conditioned to very fast movement.

People can see beyond 60fps, u just need to be trained to react to it, which most of us arent.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/305?vs=306

the 570 vs 580 they both get around 40-50 at 1920x1200 in the most intense games. in BF:BC2 they get 70+

yeah as i said u got me there.. i need to go home and reinstall my drivers...

 

[brencat]

Haha you're going to start another huge debate. A lot of people will say you can't notice greater than 60 FPS, but everyone's eyes are different. You will just have to test that for yourself an find out what your eyes are like.

Agreed. Really varies from person to person. I definitely can notice 30 FPS...it sucks. Which is why I never finished Crysis or Crysis Warhead without getting halfway through the games (back when I had my older vid card). I expect to be > 40 FPS at all times.

 

[KingFatty]

Watching a video of someone using a triple display setup doesn't convey the immersion feeling it gives you. I'd suggest you visit someone with a triple display setup and sit down for yourself before you decide whether to go with a single 30" display.

There is just something that appeals to your lower primate instict or something when the field of view extends out into your peripheral. Like driving a car; you "look" out the front windshield and there are big "bezels" (the A-pillars) separating the front windshield from the side windows. But wouldn't it be a different experience driving if you blocked out your side windows?

So, while you don't focus intently on the side monitors, having the peripheral surround view is just on a different level compared to a single display, even if that single display is a 30" (or bigger). In FPS games you can see people you'd normally miss.

 

[bryanW1995]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPCJh8tYri0

wow, that's nice.

 

[bryanW1995]

Agreed. Really varies from person to person. I definitely can notice 30 FPS...it sucks. Which is why I never finished Crysis or Crysis Warhead without getting halfway through the games (back when I had my older vid card). I expect to be > 40 FPS at all times.

hah! I shelved nwn2 for 3 years b/c 30fps was just too painful for me. once I tackled it with an x3350/gtx 260 combo I loved it.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I was confused. I thought you were saying you we're going to get multiple 30" screens. But even so you may have problems with a 30" screen and a single 570. At that kind of resolution you really need more video memory such as the 2GB 6950 or 6070.

This is complete FUD.

 

[Dadofamunky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPCJh8tYri0

Looks like SOME people can get SLI working well... awesome demo. That is something I will never do. Geesh, I feel decadent just having a 570. Upgrading: it's an addiction.

 

[badb0y]

Looks like SOME people can get SLI working well... awesome demo. That is something I will never do.

What? If you are talking about the guy in the video he is using Eyefinity...lol

 

[Grooveriding]

This is complete FUD.

Depends on the game and how much AA you want to use. For 30"+ someone should be looking at a 580/6970/6950.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Depends on the game and how much AA you want to use. For 30"+ someone should be looking at a 580/6970/6950.

Complete FUD. I run 3 24 inch screens 5760x1200. Obviously not any real issue with vram limits.

Secondly, the difference in the performance of the 570 and 580 is quite low in terms of fps at that resolution. There is no reason to drop an extra 150+ dollars on a 580.

Here is my source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/12/07/nvidia_geforce_gtx_570_video_card_review/8

Also owning two 570s helps. Notice how the 580 gets 3 whole more fps in F1 2010 at 2560x1600 8xaa 16xaf. If you pay 150 bucks for 3 fps you have too much money and there is no reason to read the thread just buy as much of the latest hardware as you can and enjoy.

Civ V gets 7.6 more average fps but judging by the graph it is still quite choppy and fps in Civ V is fairly meaningless as you need no reaction for the game.

Metro 2033 2560X1600 AAA 16xAF wow the 580 is 22% faster here... too bad by the time you reach a game where it makes an impact both cards really cannot play the game comfortably at these settings. IMO you will need to turn off AAA on both cards which will lessen the gap between them. Therefor once again I feel the 580 is a waste.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-9.html
6950 actually gets less frames at this resolution in this game

BFBC2 Again both cards are really going to need to go to 4xAA for the game to become playable.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-12.html
Again the 6950 actually gets less frames at this resolution in this game.

For most situations a 570 and 580 @ 2560x1600 are going to be playing at the same settings. In some instances it is possible that the 570 will be just at the edge of playing at a setting and then the 580 will be able to turn the setting up a single notch.

I suppose it comes down to your personal calculated utility. However I do not see any merit at all in your claim that he should consider a 6950 as it performs worse at his resolution. 6970 and 580 are worth about 3 - 8 fps on average at that resolution with settings cranked to 8xAA. Honestly on a 30 inch screen the difference between 4x and 8x is not that easy to see in game play. For the one or two games you will during ownership that will allow 8x vs 4x I think it is not worth 150$. Question for the OP is do you?

 

[Grooveriding]

In my opinion 30“ and up needs dual gpu, the same way modern games on maximum settings with AA need more than 1.2gb ram.

No fud here, just experience. I can use more than 1.2gb @ 2560x1600 in Crysis, Metro and stalker. But I like to turn everything up all the way with AA, and use supersampling in some games.

So yes if someone wants to make IQ concessions, 1.2 is enough. And when you run out of vram the difference in average frames does not give you the proper picture of the chugging, hitching gameplay you experience.

30" monitors are sort of a no compromise purchase, they should be paired with no compromise cards

Complete FUD. I run 3 24 inch screens 5760x1200. Obviously not any real issue with vram limits.

Secondly, the difference in the performance of the 570 and 580 is quite low in terms of fps at that resolution. There is no reason to drop an extra 150+ dollars on a 580.

Here is my source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/12/07/nvidia_geforce_gtx_570_video_card_review/8

Also owning two 570s helps. Notice how the 580 gets 3 whole more fps in F1 2010 at 2560x1600 8xaa 16xaf. If you pay 150 bucks for 3 fps you have too much money and there is no reason to read the thread just buy as much of the latest hardware as you can and enjoy.

Civ V gets 7.6 more average fps but judging by the graph it is still quite choppy and fps in Civ V is fairly meaningless as you need no reaction for the game.

Metro 2033 2560X1600 AAA 16xAF wow the 580 is 22% faster here... too bad by the time you reach a game where it makes an impact both cards really cannot play the game comfortably at these settings. IMO you will need to turn off AAA on both cards which will lessen the gap between them. Therefor once again I feel the 580 is a waste.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-9.html
6950 actually gets less frames at this resolution in this game

BFBC2 Again both cards are really going to need to go to 4xAA for the game to become playable.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-12.html
Again the 6950 actually gets less frames at this resolution in this game.

For most situations a 570 and 580 @ 2560x1600 are going to be playing at the same settings. In some instances it is possible that the 570 will be just at the edge of playing at a setting and then the 580 will be able to turn the setting up a single notch.

I suppose it comes down to your personal calculated utility. However I do not see any merit at all in your claim that he should consider a 6950 as it performs worse at his resolution. 6970 and 580 are worth about 3 - 8 fps on average at that resolution with settings cranked to 8xAA. Honestly on a 30 inch screen the difference between 4x and 8x is not that easy to see in game play. For the one or two games you will during ownership that will allow 8x vs 4x I think it is not worth 150$. Question for the OP is do you?

 

[Anomaly1964]

Looks like SOME people can get SLI working well... awesome demo. That is something I will never do. Geesh, I feel decadent just having a 570. Upgrading: it's an addiction.

BINGO!

I'd be perfectly content with my gaming if I didn't visit here so much...LOL!