• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Xbit Article on Eyefinity vs Surround Biased?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Quote:
Am I being overly sensitive?
Yes you are, because nothing he said was wrong, or showed partiality.
Nvidia does need 3 identical monitors to work together.
And monitor manufactures do stop doing old models of their monitors at some point.

That usually does mean, you cant expect people that upg 1->3 monitors will be able to all get 3x of the same ones (unless they throw out the old, and buy 3 at the same time = which is what happends to alot of nvidia users that go that route).

It seems fair to mention it, as its probably a situation that happends alot (with nvidia guys that go to 3 monitors).








Quote:
Why is the starting tone of the article so biased towards NVIDIA?

I know the AMD technology allows multiple (3 or 6 depending on the exact card you get) mixed monitors NATIVELY, only requiring possible adapaters if your monitors don't have the right inputs, yet their technology is described as "not so rosy" and having "a few problems to overcome".

Also the way it is written make it seem that the fact AMD can connect 6 monitors (which NVIDIA can only dream of) is a disadvantage because of the powerbills...

The fact that NVIDIA requires TWO graphic cards (or one very expensive flagship card) for more than 2 monitors is written of only as a "slight inconvenience" (which by the way increases the powerbill more in an otherwise equal 3 monitor setup...) .

I am neither an AMD or NVIDIA fanboy, but I'd like these reviews to be an objective comparison so I (and other readers with me) can make up my own mind in an informed way.***
^This.... very biased towards Nvidia article, if anything.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that in order to attain decent playable framerates at any triple screen setup, you'll need multi GPU's for the horsepower, unless you wish to stick to older games. That seems to be self-evident in benchmarks. And sometimes, even multi GPU isn't even enough Unless top end cards are utilized.
 
Last edited:

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,920
414
126
I'm pretty sure you'll find that in order to attain decent playable framerates at any triple screen setup, you'll need multi GPU's for the horsepower, unless you wish to stick to older games. That seems to be self-evident in benchmarks. And sometimes, even multi GPU isn't even enough Unless top end cards are utilized.
So does this mean that Nvidia will never offer 3+ monitor support on a single card? You seem to be saying there would be no point to do so, right? Perhaps you should think about the fact that laying the groundwork for single card 3+ monitor support will pay off as new generations of faster cards come to market, making a single card driving 3 displays more and more viable.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
475
126
So does this mean that Nvidia will never offer 3+ monitor support on a single card? You seem to be saying there would be no point to do so, right? Perhaps you should think about the fact that laying the groundwork for single card 3+ monitor support will pay off as new generations of faster cards come to market, making a single card driving 3 displays more and more viable.
I would hope the new single cards are 70%+ faster also, that would make a huge difference.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,920
414
126
I would hope the new single cards are 70%+ faster also, that would make a huge difference.
Sure.

But there are plenty of games that run fine on 3 monitors, using something like a 6970. Nvidia got caught with their pants down by Eyefinity (which is why AMD kept it such a closely guarded secret prior to launch) but you can bet Nvidia will offer their own single card solution next round, maybe with their own twist to differentiate.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
475
126
But there are plenty of games that run fine on 3 monitors, using something like a 6970
And there is more games that will run on 2 gtx460's/6850's also, just as well, and cheaper.

I dont think Nvidia or AMD really cares about the 2% of people in the world who use 3 monitors to be honest.
Do you really think Nvidia was hurt by this market?
Last I looked they were bringing cash in by the boatload. :)

The only place thats its relevent is in extreme cases like when 10 people on the forums brag about having 3 monitors and how important 2gb of memory is.
In the real world its a non issue.
 
Last edited:

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
You only need one Displayport monitor, and they are getting to be fairly common. Right now Newegg offers 40 different monitors with Displayport.

Otherwise you need an adapter, but they haven't been expensive in a long time. You can get an active DisplayPort adapter for under $30.

The article kind of sounded out of date in those regards.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
So does this mean that Nvidia will never offer 3+ monitor support on a single card? You seem to be saying there would be no point to do so, right? Perhaps you should think about the fact that laying the groundwork for single card 3+ monitor support will pay off as new generations of faster cards come to market, making a single card driving 3 displays more and more viable.
I don't know. What do you project?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY