Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by julieb, 22 Sep 2010.
Hmm, why a 460? A multi display set up needs serious GPU power. It'd be more logical to go for a 470/480 - plus this would allow tri-SLI, which would be necessary at the resolution mentioned.
How did they achieve this? Does the fermi chip include multi monitor support to this level or did they add an extra chip on the card?
the news release from zotac lacks a lot of infos and is contradicting itself in some points.
- what displays are needed to run 4 displays?
do you need 3 DP compatible displays on the DP ports or active adapters like on regular ati cards if you want to drive more than 1 ... 2... ?
(ati cards need a DP monitor or active adapter if you want to run 3 displays on a non-eyefinity-dedicated card)
- does an DVI monitor with a passive adapter run on the DP ports AT ALL?
- what resolution is supported on the DP port if there are not 3 displays connected?
- what resolution is supported on the DVI port if there is a monitor connected to the DP ports... at how many monitors it drops to 1600x1200?
what does this mean? that you can only span a game over 3 monitors and not 4?
what now zotac... 4 or 3 ...?
Sounds like the screens themselves will be limited to 1600x1200 or below, which isn't really ideal. It looks like all this card does is splits two 2650x1600 capable graphics pipelines between 4 outputs. Great if you've got lots of smaller monitors, but it doesn't really rival eyefinity.
why 4 monitors? great for productivity, sure, but you wouldn't buy a gaming card for that.
I'd say 3 monitors is better than 4 for gaming, especially for FPS games - otherwise, your targeting reticle will be exactly on the border of the centre two monitors. I'm also inclined to agree with Nvidia's decision to restrict 3+ monitors to SLI setups - there's no way a 460 can power four monitors at an acceptable frame rate.
I don't think you can expect seriously high fps from this. But this card is a welcome surprise to designers working across multiple displays and not wanting to buy 2 card just to do that
would be a great card to own for gaming then to retire to a work box in a few years
Would it be possible to span over monitors that are not the same?
19"-24"-19" as they are about the same physical height
1280x1024 - 1920x1080 - 1280x1024
would give 4480x1024
I have to admit, although I still think 3d stuff is still a bit of a nitch it would be nice to see AMD side do something, ya its hype but a lot of people are buying into that hype so showing something would be good at least on a PR level WITHOUT the need for special third party drivers and monitors.
I don't see a problem with this solution, because you can get 1600x1200 - 4:3 monitors just about everywhere.
I mean, they are more popular than 16:9 monitors now. And cheaper!
Was that sarcastic?
yeah and not to forget that all of those have display ports!
Dell is having an incredible deal on 20" LED monitors at the moment: 1600x1200, 1ms G2G, 120Hz S-IPS panel, 360° viewing angles, 120,000:1 Dynamic Contrast, Multi connections (DVI/VGA/HDMI/DP/Comp/SVid/DB23), <20w power consumption, all for $140 delivered.
And Samsung has recently announced that they will be releasing a 4:3 panel with ultra-thin bezels for gamers.
Mark my words, 4:3 is the ratio of the future!
Through two TH2G units and "spanning" in XP I was running six 19" monitors (3840*2048) off a 7950GX2 in 2007 (though it would only use one GPU). Just for fun I even tried running it on a 6600GT and it ran all six screens fine - in 2D. As for 3D it all depends on the game. I wouldn't think of trying to run the latest FPS but the 7950 was fine for your typical MMO. Ive also had this on a 260GTX and now on a 5770 (Vista & 7 didn't support nVidia's span mode) and it's still great for older games and the one MMO I play (Guild Wars).
All that to say that a 460 is not a bad start.
Actually I wish they'd stop going wider and shorter. It's great for marketing because the diagonal dimensions get longer - but the loss vertical in vertical resolution is not good. It's at the point where, for forums and such, I think it's better to use the 16:9 HD monitors rotated 90 degrees (tall & narrow).
16:9 is terrible for viewing photos if you have a mix of wide and tall photos.
Wouldn't a lower powered comsupmtion card like the 460/450 be better as this seems to be aimed at professionals rather than gaming?
Separate names with a comma.