• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

nVidia 3D Vision Surround Review

- Requires 120hz LCD displays. There is a lack of 120hz displays, not to mention the price premium for 24-30 inch models with 120hz.
- Uses alternate frame rendering which means you'll need top of the line graphics cards every year to run 3 displays in 3D
- You currently need 2 graphics card to support 3 displays (so $350-$500 x 2 for 2 graphics cards alone).
- Reliance on 3D glasses takes away from the experience (not very comfortable).

It's great to see new technologies but I feel it will take 2-3 years, if not more, before one can call 3D gaming mainstream due to the amount of $ required to enjoy it. What will come out of this though is more developers focusing on developing games that support multi-displays better. However, until ATI cards can also do 3D gaming, it's going to be difficult to push this technology across the gaming markets. Probably next generation consoles will help more than anything.
 
Last edited:
For the life of me I don't understand why ATI went for displayport as a mandatory plug. I really don't and I don't know if I ever will.

It was a really bad decision.

Nevertheless, now I know that I won't be using Nvidia's surround just like I won't be using ATI's Eyefinity. I wouldn't spring for a $100 adapter so why the hell would a spring for a second $300 dollar card?
 
If I remember from Anand's article on the 5800 series display port was used becuse it was the easiest way to get the number of video outputs oems were requesting for laptops.

Lots of LCDs have them these days. Even my work lappy has one.
 
If I remember from Anand's article on the 5800 series display port was used becuse it was the easiest way to get the number of video outputs oems were requesting for laptops.

Lots of LCDs have them these days. Even my work lappy has one.
 
happy medium said:
He said it in the video review, in the beginning of the review

Well we shall see tomorrow, when they test the gtx 470. 🙂

Wow, I missed the 260$ less part. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

It is possible if you include a $100 active displayport adapter like they had. So $160 less and then they added $100 for the adapter.
 
It does play to what is perhaps nvidia's greatest strength right now - Sli scaling. Xfire scaling on the other hand while ok driving one monitor seems to suck for eye infinity. Remember how long it took ati to get the xfire eye infinity support out - I suspect that's because the ati solution has problems and has hit some bottleneck with the way it works, something that the nvidia one seems better able to avoid.

Hence for anyone planning multi-screen gaming with multiple gpu's (which must be most multi-screen gamers as one gpu really isn't powerful enough) then nvidia has just become by far the best option.
 
I would like to see someone do some multi-monitor testing with TripleHead2Go and see how that impacts things (it shouldn't).
It would be especially interesting with NV, to see how a high res from single output from one card (of an SLI'd pair) compares to 3 different monitors with the same total resolution across two cards. Just for curiosity's sake.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen any Multimonitor setups using 40" or larger HDTV's?
It would take some aggressive adapter usage on the DP I think.

1) HDMI to HDMI
2) DVI to HDMI
3) DP Active adapter to DVI DVI to HDMI

Biggest issue would be larger bezel sizes on the HDTV's, but newer ones are getting reasonably slim. Another question I'm unclear on is whether the newer HDTV's with advertized 120hz specs can be used as monitors for 3D gaming, pretty sure the HDTV's advertising 120hz are not using same criteria as computer monitors that claim 120hz. In orther words, I wouldn't be able to use 120hz rated HDTV to get 3D gaming from my HTPC.
 
happy medium said:
They say gtx 470's in sli will outperform 2 5870's and for 200$ cheaper also? I was shocked.
Click to expand...

GTX 470 SLI setup is at least comparable to 5870 CF in performance. If you look at the minimum framerates though, 470 SLI is the preferable setup. When 470 SLI wins, it wins big. There is hardly any time (Resident Evil 5) where CF wins convincingly:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx480-sli_6.html#sect1

This is why I have been recommending 470 SLI over 5870 CF for a while. But again from a noise and power consumption perspective, the CF setup can still be appealing.
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
GTX 470 SLI setup is at least comparable to 5870 CF in performance. If you look at the minimum framerates though, 470 SLI is the preferable setup. When 470 SLI wins, it wins big. There is hardly any time (Resident Evil 5) where CF wins convincingly:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx480-sli_6.html#sect1

This is why I have been recommending 470 SLI over 5870 CF for a while. But again from a noise and power consumption perspective, the CF setup is still appealing.
Click to expand...

you nailed it. I think 470 SLI is better performance wise but the tradeoff is a bit more power consumption and heat.

I'm about to buy a second 5870 but just because i own one already, otherwise i wouldn't mind to try 480 SLI.
 
RussianSensation said:
GTX 470 SLI setup is at least comparable to 5870 CF in performance. If you look at the minimum framerates though, 470 SLI is the preferable setup. When 470 SLI wins, it wins big. There is hardly any time (Resident Evil 5) where CF wins convincingly:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx480-sli_6.html#sect1

This is why I have been recommending 470 SLI over 5870 CF for a while. But again from a noise and power consumption perspective, the CF setup can still appealing.
Click to expand...

For single monitor setups, maybe. For multiple monitors, maybe not.
The HD5870 typically closes the gap single card vs single card as resolution increases (not always the case, but typical).

When it comes to multiple cards:
In Dirt 2, HAWX, AvP, CoD:MW2, Wolfenstein the gap closes between HD5870 and GTX470 SLI between 1680x1050 and 2560x1600

In BFBC2, Crysis, Metro 2033, Stalker, SF4, Mass Effect 2 the gap remains about the same.

In Battleforge, WIC, Far Cry, Just Cause 2, Resident Evil 5 the GTX470 SLI increases its lead.

So that's 5 to ATI, 6 neutral and 5 to NV from 1680x1050 -> 2560x1600 (winning based only on the change in gap and not who is faster overall. ATI could 'win' and still be slower, and so could NV, for example by going from being 50% slower to 20% slower)

The interesting thing to see is what happens when the resolution increases even more, from 2560x1600 to 5760x1080 (since there is a 50% increase in pixels).
 
A comprehensive review comparing the eyefinity / surround resolutions with CF / SLI will be very interesting. It is likely that this is where Fermi will shine. Not sure how much this will do for nVidia's bottom line though, the high cost of entry means this is a niche market within a niche market.
 
RussianSensation said:
GTX 470 SLI setup is at least comparable to 5870 CF in performance. If you look at the minimum framerates though, 470 SLI is the preferable setup. When 470 SLI wins, it wins big. There is hardly any time (Resident Evil 5) where CF wins convincingly:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx480-sli_6.html#sect1

This is why I have been recommending 470 SLI over 5870 CF for a while. But again from a noise and power consumption perspective, the CF setup can still appealing.
Click to expand...

Sorry ,I meant sli gtx 470's in surround.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=947&type=expert&pid=4

Best bang for the buck right now.
294$ gtx 470 AR.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ID=skim267X417
 
happy medium said:
I hope this starts a price war.
Click to expand...

GTX470 was tough to recommend at $350. For $275-280, it's going to be very very hard to recommend a 5870. But this makes the GTX480 and 5970 just overpriced in comparison. If prices continue to decline, I can't see GTX460 staying at $250 for long after launch. :awe:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top