Get 3 17" and go wide!

Don't you need the Matrox that goes with that box?

I've got 3 screens, but the one powered by a PCI 5200FX ain't so fast!
 
Just read the article, seems good for older games, shame it tops out at 1024 pixels high.

edit: Just realised I could use that to go 2405+2001(portrait)+19"CRT+3x17"screens arrayed panoramically . Bwahahaha...new reason to live ;)
 
Last edited:
I forsee problems. Firstly as james pointed out, the enormous res - you will not run Fear, or probably any recent fairly demanding game, smoothly in that res no matter what PC you have. It's nearly 4 million pixels. Secondly, the aspect ratio of 3.75 : 1 will only be supported by a handful of games, most games will look squashed. And thirdly, I don't think games will actually look that 'big' because of the lack of height. It may be very wide, but it's also short.

I think two 19"ers would be better, or a single widescreen.
 
With 2 screens the join between the two is in the centre of your vision, but with 3 at least the centre of your vision is unobstructed.
 
That's true, but if your games are running 2 frames per second, you've got bigger problems than where the bezel is. 3840*1024 is 70% more pixels than 1900*1200.
 
This could actually soon be very viable. A 7900 will run one 19" monitor just fine, and soon there will be quad-sli. So a mobo with 4 pci-e x16 slots, you could have one per monitor (or one for each side, two for middle).

They will probably look squashed, but for that one game that supports super panoramic view...
 
Rather than have all these screens in front of you, what you need is just 1 to your front, 1 either side and 1 behind you. Then you really would have to look over your shoulder to see what is creeping up behind you in your latest FPS :D

BTW, I am sure this was tested out quite a few years ago by some company, can't remember who though. IIRC they had quake running with 4 independent views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom