5040x1050 Test Results (GTX 275 896MB and 1792MB vs GTX 295)

I haven't heard anyone debating about cards with more than 1GB....

That said, the resolution makes a small difference in vram usage. Textures, models, etc... which vary in size independent of resolution are what really hog vram usage, not framebuffers. Even 5040x1050 only needs ~30 mb for double buffering. What would have been really interesting is seeing what happens if they enabled, say, 4xAA at that resolution.
 
joecuddles said:
Not really fodder when the thing your testing is never used or seen by anyone.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh I play one and only one game. iracing. 5040x1050 (22x3) is a huge advantage in the game and pretty much the only way to sim race in my mind. Setup is used by many sim racers. So yes it is more fodder.
 
0100 said:
Ahhhhh I play one and only one game. iracing. 5040x1050 (22x3) is a huge advantage in the game and pretty much the only way to sim race in my mind. Setup is used by many sim racers. So yes it is more fodder for me and the 4 other guys who play this game exclusively.
Click to expand...

FYP.

:)
 
Oooo 15,000 people, what an install base!

I'm aware that racing enthusiasts and others triple monitor. My comment was in response the fact that 5040x1050 is not a resolution most people are even aware of and no one is using it in any practical way (other than the 0.0001% of PC users who play iracing), so saying that some tests done on that res are 'fodder' is a bit silly. Anyone who knows that 5040x1050 exists would hopefully be intelligent enough to have drawn the conclusion that yes, 2GB probably makes a difference at that res. In the real world however, nothing is added to the fodder at all. If there even was any fodder.
 
Dang Joe, cut him a break... as fast as panel prices are dropping recently it's not TOO much of a stretch to go with a triple monitor setup.

AFAIK, ATI nor Nvidia dosen't support more than a dual head setup through drivers... so getting a TH2G is kinda mandatory for this kinda setup... which is more than I want to pay for 3 screens.

*Note* I believe ATI supports 3+ screens in CF, not sure tho.

Personally, I have a 22" LCD (1680x1050) I'd gladly swap out for my 3 17" LCD's ((1280x3)x1024) if it was suppored by drivers (not to mention 3 monitor ports on my card.) Maybe one day we'll have a card with multiple Mini Display Ports on it...
 
wouldn't this be kind of inaccurate because of the extra load incurred by the Matrox device (i.e: bezel correction and whatnot), vs straight into a monitor?

and I don't see what the issue is with frame buffers, unless you're thinking a 9400GS with 2GB of RAM is somehow magically the bestest ever, the card usually comes with *roughly* what it needs to be competent

also, I'd love to see what 5040x1050 looks like (like on three monitors, not just an SS), does it improve FOV or anything, or is it just ~170* in the real world, and still ~100* in the game world *sigh*

::EDIT
@ sulseeker:
ATI has been talking about multimonitors in CF-X since CF-X was released, I've yet to actually see it happen, I know it will support multiple displays with CF-X connected/enabled, but as far as rendering onto them all, no idea (nVidia will support dual monitor gaming (nView -> Horiz Span), but no bezel correction (which is a great feature on Matrox's part, assuming it works as well as advertised))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top