A petition for triplescreen gaming reviews

Hey guys! Remember me? i'm the guy that is always giving you a hard time in the comments. Before i continuei'd like to say that this is still my favorite site for starting my day.

Having said that, i think you guys are totally missing the boat on triplescreen gaming.

Simply put, i think you can score some real good points if you put in the time to release a series of triplescreen articles, and include triplescreen resolutions in your benchmarks from now on.

First of all, i'm aware that the adoption of the technology is not that great. However, that's not an arguement for you guys to not focus on it. You reviewed the i7-970, the GTX580, had extensive articles on the dreamPC a while back, reviewed a waterchiller, and you regularly include graphics results for 2560x1600 resolutions.
The fact that certain hardware and/or technology is out of reach for most of us, doesn't mean we don't like reading about it. You are well aware of this.

Aside from the expansive review of eyefinity that Guru3D did back in 2009, none of your competitors have taken the technology serious. This means you can get a real lead on everyone else, and if the opening series of articles is good enough, you can become the de-facto go-to site for triplescreen gaming.

Also, it's not as unattainable as most people think.
The 2560x1200 screen you use to test that resolution must be close to 1000 pounds, while three 1920x1080 screens can be picked up for under 400. Couple with a 6870 (that's under 200 now), and you are in business. It will even fit in the budget of your enthousiast PC with some creativity.

 

+1

CPC did an article a while back about triple screen setups, but it was before all this eyefinity business.

I personally prefer a smaller screen 19" - "22 and would love to know about 3x screen options.

How to's, budget, work and gaming etc etc.

 

Indeed. I would like to see support from the games for natively supporting the tri monitor resolution without having to mess around with tweaks ect. MW looks like crap cause of settings that I can not adjust in game. widescreengamingfourm.com is invaluable to owners of any widescreen setups.

Hope to see more support from tech sites and games for these sorts of setups.

 

it's 2560x1600 the price is due to the panel technology, less about size.

three 1080p monitors plus a large empty desk plus the electricity it uses and don't forget what you use it for when not gaming.

to be honest, same thing can be said for 3D. these new technologies are for the most extreme users.



having said those, i support your arguement, Bit-tech seems to have been slipping lately. i was fully expecting a Cayman architecture overview today since it's been delayed for a couple of weeks.



(found your thread by your link in 6970 review thread)

 

+1

Comparing a similar budget for playable surround gaming, that would be nice too. What would it cost for an nVidia setup, to have the same experience as AMD? Would two 460's cost the same as one 6950 or 6970 and have similar frame rates?

 

You can easily look up what they cost, i blieve they'd be slightly more expsive then a single 6970.

As for performance, on these resolutions it remains to be seens if a dual GTX460 setup with superior theoretical processing power or the 6970 with double the vRAM would be the best choice. There's no telling untill somebody does the numbers, and that is EXACTLY the point of this thread.

 

Thx for the support!

Any chance of some comments from an editor on the matter?

 

Just as a show of how interesting this field is, here's a screenshot from driverheaven:



If nothing else, these results prove that when you get to triplescreen resolutions, the rules change, and you need to be looking at different cards. True_gamer is going to be sick when he sees this (he just bought three 580's), i'm quite sure he would have liked to see these numbers prior to his purchase.

 

Very few people are going to purchase 3 monitors.

If I had the money I would just buy a really good 30" they can cost well over a grand and are extreme enough.

 

But why? You can get far more resolution for considerably less by going for multiple monitors. What's more, the ultra-wide aspect ratio really seems to lend itself to gaming. How often do you look up and down in an FPS after all?

 

that huge minimal FPS drop for nvidia seems to be clearly vRAM related.

1.5GB is only just enough for 2560x1600 with moderate AA, 1.3GB is only just enough for 1920x1200 with high AA.

3GB gtx580 for surround?



@Yslen then i propose to you another argument: how much is a 23 inch 1080p monitor with good IPS panel? around £250. how much is a 30 inch? £800 Hazro. there is actually only £50 difference to pay for a setup more generalised towards other activity (films, older games, non-FPS/racing games, internet browsing) than 3 monitors.

but it's all personal preference. i prefer straight up gaming, so no crossfire/sli or 3d/eyefinity for me. just single large panel for more traditional computing.

 

I don't like the black bars they can cover up parts of the game and text.

I'm sure a better solution is just around the corner, like single ultra-wide monitors that have a bend in them with higher resolutions than we have now.

 

I wouldn't say that, its the games POV that makes that work properly and some games do not natively support ultra wide resolutions properly. This is kinda the idea behind this thread, to test games with dual/tri support for performance and compatibility.

A half moon monitor system would be epic, but would be ridiculously priced. And that's assuming that the screen can even display properly with those bends (as your position in the half-moon would dictate POV, like stretching an image to suit your peripheral vision). See with a tri setup each unit can act on its own as a usable monitor for every day needs. Like right now I am using my right monitor to type this message. Something in a oval/half-moon setup would be difficult for said reasons.

Anyhow, I built a tri setup for under $600 (3x 22" monitors). This included the tri monitor stand. And I can honestly say that Half Life 2 in surround gaming is very pleasant.

 

i remember seeing a curved surround style monitor a few years back being displayed. i couldn't find the one i was thinking of so here are a few i found quickly using google.

Alienware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msLKbeVvteU

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-fea...ll’s-curve-monitor-is-something-to-drool-over

 

Those are sweet. But DLP? And real thick like a CRT? Pass! I'd rather have a bezel to deal with! And an unknown price tag? Even better!

 

they are only poroto types if i understand the article correctly. so the tech is new(ish). i do hope they keep working on the idea though.

so hopefully one day in the future it may be a legit option.

 

I bet you that if we start sounding off triplescreen users and 30" users, it will be about equal. However, this is NOT the point.
From the first post:

I could also have included the Asus Mars and Ares cards, that are very clearly off the radar for everyone that wants to make a sane buying decision.
We still like reading about them!

So, respectfully, please p*** off with the "very few people use it". First of all you are using the bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad populum), and second of all you are not making a valid argument even with it.

Please leave the "many people" saying to Fox News

 

+1 to the triple screen review. I use 3 screens for work as its more productive. Would like to see some review on triple screens.

 

+1 also, I am a tri-screen gamer and member of WSGF too. As much as WSGF is invaulable to me, I would really love to read some articles with your take and style on the matter.

 

We have something in our labs at the moment that should satisfy some of your wide screen lust when we get to play with it in the new year.

Its only in for review as far as I know but if we get to keep it, it may become a permanent feature. I don't know what Clive has planned for it. Stay tuned.