-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
One thing i would like to see from Kepler
- Thread starter EL_NEO
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,215
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Theres a Galaxy gtx580 that does 3 screens from one card but i don't think its available in the uk.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,597
Only with special edition cards. Nvidea are as fare behind on multiscreen as AMD are with physics.
AMD selling points are multi screen setups (with at least 15 screens for gaming etc) and duel cards scaling (crossfire)
Nvideas benifits are Physx and 3D vission
AMD do 3D how it should be done, opensorce but I believe nvideas solution is better, Should all be open IMHO
AMD selling points are multi screen setups (with at least 15 screens for gaming etc) and duel cards scaling (crossfire)
Nvideas benifits are Physx and 3D vission
AMD do 3D how it should be done, opensorce but I believe nvideas solution is better, Should all be open IMHO
Connectivity aside nVidia aren't behind with multiscreen btw, as far as the software side of it goes its pretty advanced... sadly nVidia have gimped the gaming side somewhat so as to not conflict with the sale of their higher margin cards needed to run mosaic 
Other than with the odd special edition card they can't run 3 screens from 1 GPU.
You could say that makes them behind.
Well the 7970 is fairing pretty well at these high resolutions and with Keplar being late, it's more or less expected to be more powerful than the 7970. So if the 7970 can do multi screen gaming then why can't Nvidia implement it?. AMD have been doing it for a while but I do factor what you're saying about 3D. I don't think Keplar will be capable of high resolution multi screen gaming in 3D on a single card. Regardless, Nvidia should have this option too. What is stopping them?. They can see AMD are offering this on their single cards
.Even if it's only for the desktop, the option to be able to do it would be nice.
Your initial comment seemed more general than just high end gaming and the fact that you can't run a 3 screen setup for any purpose, from the vast majority of single Nvidia GPU's, would seem a bit of an obstacle.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 1,946
- Location
- Scottish Borders - UK
KFA2 do a few as well. I know they do a 570, not sure about 580.
The problem of course is that they're pretty much a stock 570 with 1.3gb vram. Running three screens on that would be terribly choppy.
But yes, apparently Kepler will do it natively (about friggin time !
)The main bugbear I had with Surround was SLI. And the main bugbear I had with SLI was surround.. Sounds stupid, hear me out.
It's bad enough having to rely on one driver based technology, but having to rely on two at the same time?
/take the monitors down and break out the polyfilla.
Surround "as is" is a complete hack. I don't mean that rudely, I mean it in truth. It's a hack of the way that Windows 7 displays itself. Basically it mashes the three monitors together and shows them to Windows as two.
Due to that it's buggy. When dragging Windows around the theme would drop Aero constantly and flash and flicker really badly. I also had serious issues with NCP not detecting my monitors' correct resolutions and not allowing me to set it either. I would have to do that via the Windows screen resolution part. The only driver I found that did pick up the correct res, and did work well, and didn't flicker all the time was numbered 279.xx
Which was great, only when you tried to run a game it would say "This driver is not supported by this game. Please visit Nvidia.com and install the latest driver".
Kepler could fix all of this, and should.
Last edited:
For the <1% of people who run three screens this is very important. For the remaining >99% it is unimportant unless you are an AMD fanboy and just like extra features that are rarely used.
Given a choice out of having multi monitor support, or saving £1, I prefer to have that pound.
Given a choice out of having multi monitor support, or saving £1, I prefer to have that pound.
Yeah I agree man. When I bought my 7970 I got the XFX core model for £439 delivered. Which is pretty good, given the prices I saw around..
I was fully aware that it didn't come with a Mini DP - HDMI adapter as the Sapphire does, but the Sapphire was £35 more so you were paying for it.
I just don't need the thing, so was far happier with the saving.
However, what you do need to take into account is that this is a lot more important than a £1 saving. This is a function that Nvidia cards do not have. That would be fine if ATI/AMD cards did not offer the function, but when making a purchase you will consider all of these things. That's why they have clung onto Physx really. Sure, it's a bit papp and pointless, but it's something AMD cards don't have.
Surround/Eyefinity, even though it has very very few users, is way more important though. Owning an Nvidia card right now basically rules it out completely. Spending another £200 or so and relying on SLI and all that stuff is really a complete deal breaker if you were even so much as considering it IMO.
Most won't ever use Eyefinity, but at least it's there should you ever become curious
I'd also like to see this...
I have three 30" hazros (at 2560*1600 each) so mostly I game on one screen, but I'm tired of multi-GPU solutions and want to go single-GPU this time around. I'd still like the option of triple-screen gaming in less demanding games...
I have three 30" hazros (at 2560*1600 each) so mostly I game on one screen, but I'm tired of multi-GPU solutions and want to go single-GPU this time around. I'd still like the option of triple-screen gaming in less demanding games...