Something obvious I don't see anywhere in the pipe -
Today I run two monitors off a Radeon 9700 Pro. Some games can be made to run in SPAN mode (NWN, UT, etc.)
Problem with two monitors is the split right down the middle where the monitor frames seperate the viewable parts of the monitors, and basically interrupt with the game.
This is in spite me having chosen two very thin-frame monitors (Samsung 172X's).
This could have been ignored if the main happening in most games didn't occur right smack in the middle. And the solution is simple - game on three monitors, which gives you a nice uninterrupted center panel, and drives the center of the game away from the two splits between the three screens.
Now the main application for monsters such as SLI/Crossfire solutions are ones with lots of pixels - either crazy-resolution screens (>1600x1200 today), or, the more economically feasible solution (as in more expensive than one screen, but a hell of a lot cheaper than an extra 3 inches) - multiple screens.
And the paradox - it drives people nuts playing on two screens because of the SPLIT issue, and neither the ATI or NVIDIA solution supports SLI/XFIRE gaming on 3 screens, probbably the most logical way for consumers to make use of these render-monsters.
What gives?
Today I run two monitors off a Radeon 9700 Pro. Some games can be made to run in SPAN mode (NWN, UT, etc.)
Problem with two monitors is the split right down the middle where the monitor frames seperate the viewable parts of the monitors, and basically interrupt with the game.
This is in spite me having chosen two very thin-frame monitors (Samsung 172X's).
This could have been ignored if the main happening in most games didn't occur right smack in the middle. And the solution is simple - game on three monitors, which gives you a nice uninterrupted center panel, and drives the center of the game away from the two splits between the three screens.
Now the main application for monsters such as SLI/Crossfire solutions are ones with lots of pixels - either crazy-resolution screens (>1600x1200 today), or, the more economically feasible solution (as in more expensive than one screen, but a hell of a lot cheaper than an extra 3 inches) - multiple screens.
And the paradox - it drives people nuts playing on two screens because of the SPLIT issue, and neither the ATI or NVIDIA solution supports SLI/XFIRE gaming on 3 screens, probbably the most logical way for consumers to make use of these render-monsters.
What gives?
