What’s Old Is New Again with Eyefinity

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Over the last year, we’ve covered just about every aspect of Eyefinity gaming imaginable, but it wasn’t until we covered first time Eyefinity gaming experiences that I got to thinking about dusting off some older games to see if they would work with Eyefinity. Surprisingly enough, many of the games I tried worked with very little effort at all. To me, that’s just one of the added benefits of Eyefinity, older games feel new again thanks to a little high-res triple screen goodness.


I use a Radeon HD 5850 on a Windows 7 64-bit box. The screenshots were taken in 3x1 configuration (portrait mode) and resized for easier viewing.
 
Last edited:
Borderlands isn't "old" but it was fun playing UT III, Fallout 3, Doom 3 and Half Life 2 and Crysis again in triple screen.
 
I really wish it was as simple as you guys make it out to be. But I've invested in Eyefinity and so far it's been the worst experience I've ever had. The only game I'm interested in playing right now is Battlefield Bad Company 2. If I play the game using a single monitor it works just fine. As soon as I try Eyefinity, it fails. I've wasted a tremendous amount of money on the suggestions you guys have been giving and the technology doesn't work.

Here are my threads I've started about it.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33961699

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1510879

I'm completely out of ideas on how to get this to work stable. It simply doesn't work.
 
The aspect ratio is only 1.87:1. Not exactly all that different from 16:9 (i.e. 1.78:1), really. What's the total resolution?
 
I tried to play Fallout 2 to see if it would tile out to fill up the resolution but I can't get it to run on Win 7 :(

Titan Quest works well though. I also.. never actually played through Bioshock till I had Eyefinity setup.. that was cool.
 
........and the technology doesn't work.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will disagree...


Anyway..

Steve, thanks for the SS's. Although, its kinda hard to tell the benefit from them because you used portrait mode and then resized the pictures. It almost looks like normal 16x10 screenshots.
 
Thats one of my favorite things to do when i get a new monitor/speakers/videocard what have you, is go back and enjoy my favorite games again ;)
 
I really wish it was as simple as you guys make it out to be. But I've invested in Eyefinity and so far it's been the worst experience I've ever had. The only game I'm interested in playing right now is Battlefield Bad Company 2. If I play the game using a single monitor it works just fine. As soon as I try Eyefinity, it fails. I've wasted a tremendous amount of money on the suggestions you guys have been giving and the technology doesn't work.

Here are my threads I've started about it.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33961699

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1510879

I'm completely out of ideas on how to get this to work stable. It simply doesn't work.

I don't know the specifics of your setup but I am running a q6600, 6gb gskill ddr2, and a 5870 with 3 dell 2209wa's just fine in bad company 2. I haven't had a single issue worked out of the box.
 
I really wish it was as simple as you guys make it out to be. But I've invested in Eyefinity and so far it's been the worst experience I've ever had. The only game I'm interested in playing right now is Battlefield Bad Company 2. If I play the game using a single monitor it works just fine. As soon as I try Eyefinity, it fails. I've wasted a tremendous amount of money on the suggestions you guys have been giving and the technology doesn't work.

Here are my threads I've started about it.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33961699

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1510879

I'm completely out of ideas on how to get this to work stable. It simply doesn't work.

i can only say try full reload of windows first if that fails try getting an replacement card {make an very small mark the old one to make sure they do not send the same one back}, (looking at them threads now)

i buy ATI if i knew it work right away with new games not 3-4 months later on, 48xx drivers have still not been fixed in 10.4 (that's now month 3-4 with broken drivers) think 58xx drivers have been fixed
 
I really wish it was as simple as you guys make it out to be. But I've invested in Eyefinity and so far it's been the worst experience I've ever had. The only game I'm interested in playing right now is Battlefield Bad Company 2. If I play the game using a single monitor it works just fine. As soon as I try Eyefinity, it fails. I've wasted a tremendous amount of money on the suggestions you guys have been giving and the technology doesn't work.

Here are my threads I've started about it.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33961699

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1510879

I'm completely out of ideas on how to get this to work stable. It simply doesn't work.

I've played Bad Company 2 for 80 hours with eyefinity. I guess eyefinity doesn't work.

I've tried eyefinity with over 40 games now... most of them are perfectly playable. I replayed a lot of old games with eyefinity... it really is a completely different experience.
 
It simply doesn't work.

Are we just talkin about one game? I'd be upset too if I shelled out $$$$$ to play one game and it doesn't work with Eyefinity. What do the developers / tech support have to say about it? I have no idea what to say if you are basing your whole experience on one game though. :(


It almost looks like normal 16x10 screenshots.

it is...BUT BIGGAR!!!

Posting the original screens uncompressed at 3150 x 1680 is just too much for the average person to download. ;^)
 
This site is really starting to sound like an advertisement for ATI. I really don't see the point in countless eyefinity articles.
 
Looking at those screenshots makes it very hard to wait on purchasing my next card (just gotta wait out of principle!)
 
This site is really starting to sound like an advertisement for ATI. I really don't see the point in countless eyefinity articles.
I believe HardOCP feels that Multi-Monitor gaming in general is major advancement. It just so happens that ATI is the only one that has a decent implementation ATM. Nvidia is jumping on the bandwagon quickly also, and I am fairly certain HardOCP will be covering their version as soon as they got it up and running. There has been the older TripleHead2go and software implementations in the past, but ATI has put together a much simpler implementation and Nvidia is following suit.

If you have ever seen one of these multi-monitor systems in action, I believe you would be a convert and see the benefit.
 
3150 x 1680...(sigh)...

I remember being excited to play games at 1024x768... :(
 
I prefer the screens in landscape for the higher FOV effect, unfortunately Borderlands sucks in 5760x1200.

I just bought Fallout3:Goty edition for $30, I look forward to playing it with eyefinity.
 
gotta say, it surprises me how much attention eyefinity gets, and how little 3Dvision receives
I've seen em both in action and it's just no contest, 3Dv blows eyefinity away when it comes to immersion, which kyle often states as the key thing eyefinity brings to games
When i play a game using eyefinity the bezels niggle, FOV usually feels a little off and is occasionally shot to pieces, the image is fragmented
i play a game in 3D: ... absolutely. freakin'. amazing...
the whole scene just comes to life

i suppose that's the problem really: how do you effectively demonstrate it?
the free red/cyan version of 3Dv probably isn't helping
 
Last edited:
If you have ever seen one of these multi-monitor systems in action, I believe you would be a convert and see the benefit.

Oh I have, at my local Fry's and played on it for a bit. The bezels just killed any sort of immersion that I had. I'm not saying it's a bad technology, I just think this site has about 5 times the amount of articles needed for eyefinity, and I'm not sure why.
 
Oh I have, at my local Fry's and played on it for a bit. The bezels just killed any sort of immersion that I had. I'm not saying it's a bad technology, I just think this site has about 5 times the amount of articles needed for eyefinity, and I'm not sure why.

Because its something new actually worth talking about. Faster cards are great, but an honest-to-god new feature that works with existing games? That is a rare treat.

gotta say, it surprises me how much attention eyefinity gets, and how little 3Dvision receives
I've seen em both in action and it's just no contest, 3Dv blows eyefinity away when it comes to immersion, which kyle often states as the key thing eyefinity brings to games
When i play a game using eyefinity the bezels niggle, FOV usually feels a little off, the image is fragmented
i play a game in 3D: ... absolutely. freakin'. amazing...
the whole scene just comes to life, particle effects in particular

i suppose that's the problem really: how do you effectively demonstrate it?
the free stereoscopic version of 3Dv probably isn't helping

The problem with 3Dv is the strict requirement on monitors. Up until recently you couldn't even get anything larger than a 22in, and you still can't get 1920x1200 or higher. Not to mention you are stuck with TN panels. I use my triple monitor setup all the time for more than just gaming. So monitor picture quality played a huge role when I decided to buy new monitors. You just can't get PQ and 3Dv at the same time. Eyefinity works with the monitors I wanted and I love it.

Not to mention 3D just doesn't work for some people. I don't particularly like wearing the 3D glasses, for example.
 
I'm not saying it's a bad technology, I just think this site has about 5 times the amount of articles needed for eyefinity, and I'm not sure why.

That is an odd statement. 5x the average? 5x more than what we should have? 5x more than you approve of? What would the correct amount of Eyefinity coverage be?

...and what does that have to do with people enjoying older games on Eyefinity?
 
How about GTA4?
It's an older game, but quite a load on your system.
I would like to see how it runs with the 5870 in basic and eyefinity setups.
 
gotta say, it surprises me how much attention eyefinity gets, and how little 3Dvision receives
I've seen em both in action and it's just no contest, 3Dv blows eyefinity away when it comes to immersion, which kyle often states as the key thing eyefinity brings to games
When i play a game using eyefinity the bezels niggle, FOV usually feels a little off, the image is fragmented
i play a game in 3D: ... absolutely. freakin'. amazing...
the whole scene just comes to life, particle effects in particular

i suppose that's the problem really: how do you effectively demonstrate it?
the free stereoscopic version of 3Dv probably isn't helping

I'm interested in 3d too, I just am waiting for a 23" 1920x1080 120Hz monitor so I can mix it into my Eyefinity set up. I assume this'll be available around Christmas time. Right now I think there's a 22" Samsung, 22" Viewsonic (probably same panel), 23.6" Acer (ugly orange), and way overpriced Alienware 23". Also can get the 22" iZ3d monitor. I probably should have gone with 22" monitors so I could get a 120Hz that fits easier but I wanted the extra size.

I don't understand the bezel complaints. For one, the bezels don't bother me at all, and 2nd the other option is to have nothing on the sides at all and I find the wall kills immersion much more than bezels.
 
This was an interesting article but I'm not sure what you are trying to demostrate. Correct me if I am wrong, but setting it up in 3x1 portrait display mode was a mistake for creating an article to show off Eyefinity because if you have 3 1920x1080 monitors set up in 3x1 portrait, your resolution is 3240x1920.

That's a 16:9 resolution isn't it?

Therefore your resized screenshots really don't show anything at all over a standard screenshot taken by anyone else and doesn't show anything that has to do with Eyefinity! They look just like normal regular screenshots. You don't see any additional field of view, what you see is the same as what someone with a normal 16:9 monitor sees, albeit maybe on a 19" monitor. Is my math right here or am I missing something?

I sure that 3x1 portrait is enjoyable for you and others in person you get an incredible amount of screen real estate, but when you are showing a resized screenshots, you aren't showing anything at all. This article should have shown them in 3x1 horizontal orientation to show off the the expanded peripheral field of view that most people associate with Eyefinity.
 
Last edited:
This was an interesting article but I'm not sure what you are trying to demostrate. Correct me if I am wrong, but setting it up in 3x1 portrait display mode was a mistake for creating an article to show off Eyefinity because if you have 3 1920x1080 monitors set up in 3x1 portrait, your resolution is 3240x1920.

That's a 16:9 resolution isn't it?

Therefore your resized screenshots really don't show anything at all over a standard screenshot taken by anyone else and doesn't show anything that has to do with Eyefinity! They look just like normal regular screenshots. You don't see any additional field of view, what you see is the same as what someone with a normal 16:9 monitor sees. Is my math right here or am I missing something?

I sure that 3x1 portrait is enjoyable for you and others in person you get an incredible amount of screen real estate, but when you are showing a resized screenshots, you aren't showing anything at all. This article should have shown them in 3x1 horizontal orientation to show off the the expanded peripheral field of view that most people associate with Eyefinity.

My point exactly. I actually said this way up top, in a few less words. ;)
 
No, they must be 16:10 displays. The final aspect ratio is 1.87:1 — slightly wider than 16:9.

I had assumed for explanation's sake that he was using something like the standard 24" 1920x1080 that a lot of people use.

The images are 1600x854 pixels, which is vertically less than 1600x900 (16:9). Regardless, that still means the resized screenshots basically don't show anything different than what any normal guy sees on his single monitor. It actually shows less. It might have originally had sharper textures and less aliasing due to the high resolution but most of that is lost in the rasterization.
 
Last edited:
makes me want to play Doom3 again, I have a new set of high def headphones and a super dark room, I think its been long enough to get some of the suprises to scare me again.
 
This was an interesting article but I'm not sure what you are trying to demostrate. Correct me if I am wrong, but setting it up in 3x1 portrait display mode was a mistake for creating an article to show off Eyefinity because if you have 3 1920x1080 monitors set up in 3x1 portrait, your resolution is 3240x1920.

That's a 16:9 resolution isn't it?

Therefore your resized screenshots really don't show anything at all over a standard screenshot taken by anyone else and doesn't show anything that has to do with Eyefinity! They look just like normal regular screenshots. You don't see any additional field of view, what you see is the same as what someone with a normal 16:9 monitor sees, albeit maybe on a 19" monitor. Is my math right here or am I missing something?

I sure that 3x1 portrait is enjoyable for you and others in person you get an incredible amount of screen real estate, but when you are showing a resized screenshots, you aren't showing anything at all. This article should have shown them in 3x1 horizontal orientation to show off the the expanded peripheral field of view that most people associate with Eyefinity.

My point exactly. I actually said this way up top, in a few less words. ;)

So...
If anyone in the [H] bunkers decides to post a brief snippet (calling it an article is pushing it a bit) about a bit of fun they had recently, you don't want to hear about it?

Given that this is a hardware site focused to a large extent on gaming, what would you rather have the pages filled with ?
 
...what would you rather have the pages filled with ?
Half-naked women. Just bein' honest.

Nah, it's not a bad article/post. 1.87:1 is a nice aspect ratio and it's interesting, to me, seeing these games at that aspect ratio. 4.8:1 is cooler though ;)
 
The aspect ratio is only 1.87:1. Not exactly all that different from 16:9 (i.e. 1.78:1), really. What's the total resolution?

I've been playing with SoftTH and using 2x23 and 1x24 the aspect ratio is almost 16:9. I got a crazy idea in my head that 3x1600x1200 would actually kick ass with a 16:4 ratio.

Steve, am I nuts?
 
This site is really starting to sound like an advertisement for ATI. I really don't see the point in countless eyefinity articles.


well this is what happens when Nvidia is late to the game and still doesnt support multi-display gaming.. when nvidia pulls their heads out of their asses then we will start seeing multi-display articles popping up everywhere for them as well.. so get over it..
 
How about GTA4?
It's an older game, but quite a load on your system.
I would like to see how it runs with the 5870 in basic and eyefinity setups.

In the last month I played through GTA4 in eyefinity. I played in 3150x1680 resolution with everything max pretty much. I did get some slow downs a bit when there was a huge amount of police and a weather effect such as rain going on but I think that was probably more to do with my Q6600 CPU being at stock 2.4ghz. If i turned down the settings a slight bit I got the little bit of lag to go away. A big setting being the view distance that changed the performance.
 
I've been playing with SoftTH and using 2x23 and 1x24 the aspect ratio is almost 16:9. I got a crazy idea in my head that 3x1600x1200 would actually kick ass with a 16:4 ratio.

Steve, am I nuts?

When triple head first started most people used 3x4:3 or 3x5:4... 3840x1024 was pretty popular I believe.
 
This was an interesting article but I'm not sure what you are trying to demostrate. Correct me if I am wrong, but setting it up in 3x1 portrait display mode was a mistake for creating an article to show off Eyefinity because if you have 3 1920x1080 monitors set up in 3x1 portrait, your resolution is 3240x1920.

That's a 16:9 resolution isn't it?

Therefore your resized screenshots really don't show anything at all over a standard screenshot taken by anyone else and doesn't show anything that has to do with Eyefinity! They look just like normal regular screenshots. You don't see any additional field of view, what you see is the same as what someone with a normal 16:9 monitor sees, albeit maybe on a 19" monitor. Is my math right here or am I missing something?

I sure that 3x1 portrait is enjoyable for you and others in person you get an incredible amount of screen real estate, but when you are showing a resized screenshots, you aren't showing anything at all. This article should have shown them in 3x1 horizontal orientation to show off the the expanded peripheral field of view that most people associate with Eyefinity.

True. Unless the image was shown at actual size, there is no benefit to the down sampled image. Pretty much just a 16:10 screen shot at the given rez. Someone wasn't thinking.
 
No, they must be 16:10 displays. The final aspect ratio is 1.87:1 — slightly wider than 16:9.

Wrong. 16:10 is slightly taller (vertical) then 16:9. Based on the larger second number.
That is the problem with the screen shots. They are down-sampled 16:10 images, which equal regular screen shots.
 
Wrong. 16:10 is slightly taller (vertical) then 16:9. Based on the larger second number.
That is the problem with the screen shots. They are down-sampled 16:10 images, which equal regular screen shots.

what? The images are 1600x854, which is 1.8735 ratio. A 1.8735 AR is close to a 16:8.5 ratio, slightly wider than a 16:9 monitor..

This is very close to the 30:16 (or 16:8.5) 1.875 ratio we should see at 3x 16:10 portrait or 27:16 (16:9.5) for 3x 16:9 portrait w/bezel management pushing it out to ~30:16.
 
what? The images are 1600x854, which is 1.8735 ratio. A 1.8735 AR is close to a 16:8.5 ratio, slightly wider than a 16:9 monitor..

This is very close to the 30:16 (or 16:8.5) 1.875 ratio we should see at 3x 16:10 portrait or 27:16 (16:9.5) for 3x 16:9 portrait w/bezel management pushing it out to ~30:16.

1600x900 is a 16:9 resolution.

1600x854 has 46 fewer lines of vertical resolution than 1600x900 but the same number of lines in horizontal resolution.

Therefore, is it not actually slightly vertically shorter than 16:9 while being just as wide horizontally? Maybe we are confusing our length/width terms?
 
Back
Top