Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

3D or 3-Way?

VhayneVhayne Member UncommonPosts: 632

I have sort of a dilemma, if you can call it that.  I'm currently using a 40" HDTV as my PC monitor.  And I had planned on swapping it out for a 3D HDTV soon. 

However, I have seen people using like 3, 22" monitors to create a sort of "surround vision", and I had thought of doing like 3, 40" HDTV's like this. 

Now my question is, is it possible to use the 3D technology (with the glasses the way nvidia and ati are doing it now), AND do a 3-way monitor setup with resolutions of 5760x1080 or whatever?  Or do I have to choose between the 2 options?

 

What are your opinions, and what would you do to create the ultimate PC gaming setup in terms of monitors?

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347

    While you hypothetically can do both at once, have fun trying to find hardware capable of delivering 120 frames per second at a resolution of 5760x1200 in most games.

    Stereoscopic 3D is a dumb gimmick and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  Eyefinity or Nvidia Surround may or may not catch on at the high end.  The utility will likely vary from one game to the next.  People say that the really wide view is great in some first person shooters.  When watching videos of, it the monitor bezels look obnoxious.

    In most MMORPGs, if you run at 1920x1080, there's already nothing to see on the left and right edges unless you put UI components there.  Make it 5760x1080 and you've got two whole monitors with nothing to see on them.  You can do the turn monitors vertically for an effective resolution of 3240x1920, which would make more sense for some games.  Eyefinity certainly supports this; Nvidia Surround probably does, too, but I'm not sure.

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170


    Originally posted by Vhayne
    I have sort of a dilemma, if you can call it that.  I'm currently using a 40" HDTV as my PC monitor.  And I had planned on swapping it out for a 3D HDTV soon. 
    However, I have seen people using like 3, 22" monitors to create a sort of "surround vision", and I had thought of doing like 3, 40" HDTV's like this. 
    Now my question is, is it possible to use the 3D technology (with the glasses the way nvidia and ati are doing it now), AND do a 3-way monitor setup with resolutions of 5760x1080 or whatever?  Or do I have to choose between the 2 options?
     
    What are your opinions, and what would you do to create the ultimate PC gaming setup in terms of monitors?

    If you use nVidia cards in SLI you can do 3D Surround. It takes a big investment (2x high end video cards, 3x 120Hz monitors). Personally I tried 3D and while I didn't have problems with it, it wasn't an effect I cared about enough to play for more than 1 hr with even the minor discomfort of. Basically after 15 minutes of playing it the 'wow' of 3d wore off and it felt just like normal.


    I do have a 3 monitor setup like you're talking about (3 23" monitors) and I love it even for MMO's. Not only do you get the additional immersion from the surround view but you can see mobs around you easier and you get more UI space. I can play with map, bags, inventory, quest log, whatever else open without having them in my way. I also put the chat box on the inside corner of the left monitor so it's not on my main screen and not out of the way either.


    But if you do want to invest in both you definitely can, it's just a *lot* of money - you'll want 2x GTX 470's or 2x GTX 480's to run 3d @ 5760x1080. Also if you want to see a 3x 47" setup (not 3d) you should youtube 'ledfoot 2dof'

  • VhayneVhayne Member UncommonPosts: 632

    Thanks guys.  I currently have an Alienware Area-51 ALX with 2 ATI 5970's coming in 2 days, so I suppose the 3D stuff is out for now, until I decide to actually switch them out for nvidia cards.  I got a killer deal on the Dell Outlet, otherwise I wouldn't have went with ATI (I've always been partial to nvidia, but figured I could at least try them).  A brand new build of the same PC ran $6300, and I got it for about 3k less, just because it was in the Outlet. :) 

     

    I guess what I will do, is plan to purchase 3 identical 3D TV's, and just use the "surround-vision" for now, until I decide to swap out for nvidia cards.  That way, if the 3D doesn't work all that well with the current PC's power, perhaps in the near future, it'll be easier. 

    Thanks for all the help. 

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347

    AMD and Nvidia are taking very different approaches on 3D.  Nvidia has their one particular approach to 3D with their own custom glasses and monitor, and to use 3D with Nvidia, you have to use exactly their custom hardware.  AMD is saying that they'll let third party companies come up with whatever 120 Hz monitors and 3D classes they like, and then AMD will try to support it all in drivers.  iZ3D supposedly has something out and working.  Zalman is working on some circular polarity setup, which theoretically should work a lot better than the active shutter glasses of other approaches.  If you're interested in 3D, I'd recommend checking out the Zalman circular polarity approach when it releases.

    For three monitors, AMD allows you to have three monitors attached to a single card, so you can use Eyefinity with a single GPU.  If you use multiple GPUs, then each GPU has to do all of the work to make a single display that spreads across all of the monitors, and then it uses alternate frame rendering, just like CrossFire or SLI normally do with a single monitor.  Nvidia says you have to have two cards, and one card runs two of the monitors while the other card runs the third monitor.  If you're getting two cards anyway and want exactly three monitors, I'd argue that the Nvidia approach is better here.

    The AMD approach is more versatile, as it allows Eyefinity from a single GPU, and also allows up to six monitors in total, whether from one GPU or more than one.  The six monitor restriction is hard-coded into Windows.  The AMD approach allows as many as 24 monitors in Linux, though, with four GPUs and six monitors attached to each.  If you're doing something that isn't at all demanding on a video card, you can use three monitors in Eyefinity from a $50 Radeon HD 5450; for Nvidia, you're looking at two video cards at $200+ each at minimum.  The big catch with Eyefinity is that you can have at most two monitors per GPU that are anything other than DisplayPort, which is still fairly rare in monitors, and the active DisplayPort adapters are expensive.

    Also, if you want multiple GF100-based cards in SLI, you'd better liquid cool them so that they don't overheat and die.  That's cost++, though it sounds like you've got an enormous budget.  At minimum, you'd want something much better than the reference cooler.  The reference Radeon HD 5970 has a much better cooler than the reference GeForce GTX 480, while using significantly less power.  I'd still be wary of putting two of them in a system in quad CrossFireX, though if you've got lots of airflow and proper spacing, it should be all right.

    I hope you got a good SSD in that system (though if it's from Dell, that's unlikely), as otherwise you just paid over $3000 for a system that is painfully slow.

    Also, don't be fooled by artificial price discounts from OEMs.  They'll do things like take a $100 part and claim they could hypothetically charge you $300 for it, but they'll give you a $100 discount and sell it to you for $200.  That's not a good deal if you could get the same thing for $100 elsewhere.

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412

    It doesn't have to be a choice of either or.  It also doesn't have to be a purchase as their are positive and negatives to both.

    Stereoscopic 3D for nVidia is a selling gimick.  Their method takes detail out of the scene to add a bit of depth.  Shutter glasses will most likely cause you some health problems if you use them for prolonged periods.  The end result has a bit more depth but comes at the cost of a realistic image.  There is often some distortion in the image when using stereoscopic 3D.  Ontop of everything nVision is a proprietary API, and most developers won't touch proprietary APIs unless nVidia has more then 60% market share which they no longer possess.

    Eye-finity has the obvious benefit of peripheral vision.  However, it also has the bezels and the electric bill attached.  When you are working with 3 Monitors you are looking at 3 times the work for the GPU and 3 times the energy needed.  (6 times for the 2GB version).  The benefit is peripheral vision and enhanced DPI for the area the monitor consumes.  Eye-finity also is not sophisticated enough for you to curve the displays.  As a developer you can offer this but as a customer you often will have to set them up in 1 flat face.

    You can combine both, but you will need probably 3 GPUs to do so on a demanding game.  I would suggest just 1 ATI card for Eye-finity as you are not losing much if anything from Stereoscopic 3D.  You can make up the power draw by using LED backlit monitors that consume 17w of electricity.  Personally, I would opt instead to get 1 good monitor using an IPS panel and DisplayPort connector.  Picture matters more then area for me.

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170

    Just to be fair, increasing the resolution isn't a linear progression on demand from the GPU, going from 1 monitor to 3 results in about a 40% drop in fps rather than the 66% (2/3) drop you would get if it was 3x the work. For example the settings I play BFBC2 at I can get about 60fps at 1920x1080 or 40fps at 5760x1080.

    Doing 3d is twice the work though and just a little less than a 50% drop in fps. So doing both would drop you from 60 fps to 20 fps.


    Another thing to know is, AMD definitely can do single monitor 3d using polarized lenses with the iZ3d or Zalmann polarized monitors using iZ3d drivers or on a 120hz monitor using eDimensional or upcoming Bit Cauldron shutter glasses with iZ3d drivers so buying 120Hz 3d Ready TV's is not a waste. Sapphire has also demo'd 120Hz Eyefinity 3d setup on ATI hardware using iZ3d drivers so it *is* doable I just don't know if people haven't tried or if it takes special driver modification to get there.


    Personally I think shutter glasses give a superior experience as polarized glasses still let some crossover through. Polarized glasses better suited for theaters where shutter isn't an option I think.


    I'd suggest reading Cyberlink's 3d white paper too if you visit their website, gives a lot of configuration information.

Sign In or Register to comment.