- Jan 16, 2003
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.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).
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.