Single AMD or Nvidia SLI for tri-monitor

[biodtl]

I will soon have 1x 1920x1200 monitor and 2x 1600x1200 monitors that I would like to set up in a triple monitor configuration on a new machine build. I have always purchased Nvidia graphics cards but am discovering that you pretty much need an SLI configuration to support a tri-monitor setup with Nvidia. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. My graphics card budget is probably maxed at $400. It seems AMD is the easy-route to a tri-monitor setup. Something along the lines of an AMD 7870 seems to make sense. I get the impression that an SLI setup may be more trouble than it is worth and there are always quirks and limitations with SLI. Is that true? If not, can I setup an Nvidia SLI comparable in power to an AMD 7870 within my budget range? I don't necessarily care about gaming across the 3 monitors, I would be happy to game on the single 1920x1200. I just want the tri-monitor for work productivity during the day. I am most interested in a stable and hassle-free setup. Does the AMD 7870 make the most sense in this case?

 

[Lepton87]

If you don't care about gaming AMD setup seems like a more elegant solution.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You don't need SLI for triple screen with nvidia, but you'd need an add on card for anything below the 680 at this point.

That said SLI has been great for me and many other people, it's not what you want though since SLI would only be required if you wanted to game across all three screens, which you do not.

 

[biodtl]

You don't need SLI for triple screen with nvidia, but you'd need an add on card for anything below the 680 at this point.

Hmm a GTX 680 runs about $500 minimum I see. I may be able to consider that.

Care to elaborate on the "add on" card for Nvidia below 680?

 

[KingFatty]

I wish someone with a new Nvidia card would write up their experience using it with three monitors and how it works, how you can mess around with different sized monitors, etc.

I remember with one monitor on my old Nvidia card, I could adjust custom resolutions for that monitor (e.g., turn a 1600x1200 monitor into a 1600x900 monitor). If the new Nvidia cards let you do that when you are using a setup like the OP here, then it would allow someone to maintain the same aspect ratio on all 3 monitors! But, who knows if Nvidia allows that, it just doesn't come up in the reviews I've seen.

My experience with AMD cards (58XX series) in triple monitor is that you can't arbitrarily change aspect ratios for any of the monitors under the AMD control panel, so in mixed aspect, you'd have to resort to exotic work-arounds if you want to trick the side monitors into pretending to be wide aspect, and the 1600x1200 monitors I tried it on would distort to fill the entire screen rather than letterbox.

However, the game you play may compensate. For example, with the Chronicles of Riddick series, you can specify the pixel shape. So, you could choose whether to keep the center monitor the correct aspect ratio and distort the sides, or vice versa. I found that having distorted side monitors was not very noticeable and maintained the visual immersion, and my peripheral vision didn't mind so much and I appreciated keeping the center monitor correct.

Since then I've tried a different approach, by purchasing a 4th monitor to match my side monitors. So now I have 3x matched 1600x1200 monitors, and a 1920x1200 monitor. Not sure what I'm going to do here, because I want the triple set to play FPS, and the 1920x1200 to play Starcraft 2, so I think I'll just be sliding monitors around and using my wall mount to move one out of the way to make room for another temporarily.

Anyway, biodtl, there are more considerations you should look into, with your mixed-monitor setup. Ask/look around and see if you can get any info on how Nvidia can or cannot compensate for mixed monitors when doing triple monitor setup. I haven't found anything, but I haven't looked very hard. It may turn out that AMD's solution is better or worse, and that might make your decision easier between the two brands, assuming they have comparable performance/price and both support triple monitor.

Edit: oh, forgot to point out, that even though you think right now that you won't use all 3 monitors when you game, I wanted to warn you that once you try it, I think you may reconsider. It's kind of a 'whoa' experience getting that immersion feeling, and you already have the monitors, so I think it would make sense to at least consider this as a factor in your purchase - thinking that you may inevitably play triple monitor gaming

 

[Stuka87]

Hmm a GTX 680 runs about $500 minimum I see. I may be able to consider that.

Care to elaborate on the "add on" card for Nvidia below 680?

Anything older than a 680 doesn't support triple head configurations. So you need two cards to drive three displays. And thats two cards that are not in SLI. As SLI only gives you the outputs of the first card to use, which is still limited to two displays.

AMD has had tripple head support on a single card since the introduction of the 5k series cards.

However, if you are going to game you need to make sure you get a card that has three of the same output type. ie: Three DVI, or Three DP. If you have mixed output types, you will get some nasty effects when gaming as each output type has slightly different amounts of latency. The eyefinity cards (only 5K and 6K as of right now) have this feature.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hmm a GTX 680 runs about $500 minimum I see. I may be able to consider that.

Care to elaborate on the "add on" card for Nvidia below 680?

What I mean is you'd need your main card, which would power your main display, it can also power another display or not, doesn't really matter. Then a second card, like a 9800GT or something dirt cheap, which can then run two more screens.

5xx series and below with SLI you could drive three screens off the two cards, two screens on one, another on the other. With the 680 you can run 3 screens in surround just like SLI, as well as another screen off it not in surround. So like 3 1080p screens in surround, then a TV above them off the single 680.

Edit: Surround is only needed if you intend to game on all three screens at the same time. Since you don't you can do a single main card, then a cheap card, which can then drive 4 separate displays over the two cards.

I believe with AMD you'd need to purchase an adapter to run three screens, so the difference between Nvidia and AMD at least price wise for driving three screens is kind of a wash.

 

[biodtl]

Great information! Thanks everyone. Now my options are more open.

Option 1:
The cheapest route for my triple display seems to be a good primary card (something like GTX 560) connected to the primary 1920x1200 display and one of the 1600x1200 displays. Then a cheap secondary card (like the suggested 9800GT) for the 3rd display (1600x1200). That option falls well within my $400 range.

Option 2:
Increase my budget by $100 and spring for the GTX 680 to drive all 3. Added possibility of tri-monitor gaming. Some unknowns here as far as having unmatched resolutions between the monitors.

Option 3:
AMD 7870 for about the same price as Option 1. Same potential issues as Option 1

 

[TheUnk]

Anything older than a 680 doesn't support triple head configurations. So you need two cards to drive three displays. And thats two cards that are not in SLI. As SLI only gives you the outputs of the first card to use, which is still limited to two displays.

Cards older than the 680 CAN be in SLI and run triple screens.

 

[Stuka87]

Cards older than the 680 CAN be in SLI and run triple screens.

Hmm, was not aware of that. I stand corrected