![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Best Way to Do 3 Displays?
- Thread starter Aditlojs
- Start date
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
Best in what way? You have 3 options as far as I know, maybe 4/5 -
1) An AMD card with displayport. You will also require 1 monitor with native display port or an active displayport to dvi or vga adapter.
2) Two video cards, the 2nd can be any cheapo card. More hardware will require a motherboard that supports and additional card, more power I guess, but you don't need the displayport requirement.
3) There might be certain cards (I can't recall any offhand) that can output to 3 dvi/vga. The old Matrox's could, I'm not sure if some equivalent is still around.
1/2/3 should be identical in terms of actual image quality and performance characteristics.
4) USB adapter for a monitor. These have drive requirements and only work in the OS that has those drivers. Image quality/performance will be worse due to the limitations of USB speeds. Easier to swap around and does not require opening up a PC. I'm not quite too sure what other pros/cons.
5) I've heard of a software based solution to output over a network to another display attached to another PC/laptop. But this probably isn't very applicable to your situation, but its here anyways just to be thorough.
1) An AMD card with displayport. You will also require 1 monitor with native display port or an active displayport to dvi or vga adapter.
2) Two video cards, the 2nd can be any cheapo card. More hardware will require a motherboard that supports and additional card, more power I guess, but you don't need the displayport requirement.
3) There might be certain cards (I can't recall any offhand) that can output to 3 dvi/vga. The old Matrox's could, I'm not sure if some equivalent is still around.
1/2/3 should be identical in terms of actual image quality and performance characteristics.
4) USB adapter for a monitor. These have drive requirements and only work in the OS that has those drivers. Image quality/performance will be worse due to the limitations of USB speeds. Easier to swap around and does not require opening up a PC. I'm not quite too sure what other pros/cons.
5) I've heard of a software based solution to output over a network to another display attached to another PC/laptop. But this probably isn't very applicable to your situation, but its here anyways just to be thorough.
Not for three displays. You need discreet add in cards for that. However just about anything will do. Just grab an ATI card capable of triple display and be done with it.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,937
Actually it does work on the new boards, at least on the 2 different Asus AMD based boards my brtoher use(d).
My brother was using the onboard HDMI port to his HDTV and the GTX260 to run the 2 DVI monitors at the same time..
With his new HD6850, he could run at least 4 displays.
Performance characteristics in what way?
I used two graphic cards (a cheap card for the third display) and when dragging windows and on certain videos that monitor lagged behind the other two. Went with a newer ATi card partly to do away with that.
Some onboard solutions can be active at the same time as a discreet card thus you might be able to power the third display through it.
omniscence
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,311
It will be possible to use onboard graphics together with one graphics card. Some boards however automatically disable the onboard controller if they detect a graphics card.
This is what I've seen typically.
Does anyone recommend this most likely cheaper 2 card setup? What other problems are people having?
How does that function? Is the work shared in some way or is the crappier card just lagging behind like logic would state?
Does 1200x1600 pixels require active adapter or is passive enough?
I don't think Aero is capable of using 3d acceleration on the second card...
I'd get this 5450 and an active adapter.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161323&cm_re=5450-_-14-161-323-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ..._re=displayport_active-_-14-999-032-_-Product
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
I used a 4850 and a 2600 for awhile, no issues w/aero at all.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
To clarify, what I mean is there should not be an end difference due to the 3 different methods itself. Any specific hardware or configuration issue when using can of course have an effect. In your case the 2nd card you were using may not have been high performing enough, although I don't believe any current cheapo card should have this issue.
Are you wishing to do multimonitor simply for desktop 2D work or for multimonitor gaming?
It has to be active if you wish to use 3 displays simultaneously on one card, resolution does not factor into this at all. I think you may be referring to whether it needs to be "single" or "dual" link dvi, as there is quite a large price difference between the two. Single link dvi is good to 1920x1200@60hz, while dual link is good to 2560x1600@60hz. So single link would be fine in your case as your display I'm guessing should be a standard 60hz one?
I've got a 460GTX PCI-E and a 8600GT PCI running four displays (three monitors + s-video TV) and it works fine. The PCI-driven displays are a bit "sluggish" since PCI bandwidth is only 133MB/s, but it's quite usable for internet/office applications.
1. Wondering if 2 card setup where 2nd is a cheapo/not powerful could run any games of Fallout3 caliber. I'm just an occasional gamer contemplating if I should upgrade cards or get a 2nd as cheap as possible for 3 monitor setup.
2. Three 2007FPs to be exact. Considering purchasing a 6850. DVI + DVI + which one of DP/HDMI should the 3rd be connected to and with what converter?
Thanks for all of the posts...
What I am looking for is the cheapest way to get this done. However, I definitely dont want the sluggish reaction I have seen a few people mention when going with PCI. That is unacceptable to me.
All that has been said here has been great, thanks for the link to the active adapter. I had no idea they had dropped in price so much. I was an early adopter of eyefinity back when those cost $100+. I didn't think it was going to be in the budget for this build but now I am going to look long and hard at that.
What I am looking for is the cheapest way to get this done. However, I definitely dont want the sluggish reaction I have seen a few people mention when going with PCI. That is unacceptable to me.
All that has been said here has been great, thanks for the link to the active adapter. I had no idea they had dropped in price so much. I was an early adopter of eyefinity back when those cost $100+. I didn't think it was going to be in the budget for this build but now I am going to look long and hard at that.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
1) If you are gaming, it will only be using your primary card on your primary display. If you are asking about actual multimonitor gaming (eyefinity, 3d surround), where the image is displayed across all 3 screens this is different. Eyefinity (AMDs way) has to connect through one card using the DVI/DVI/DP method (example 1 I originally mentioned). Nvidia's 3D surround requires 2 cards in SLI, so method 2, but you the 2 cards need to be able to work in SLI together.
2) Single link is fine for that resolution and refresh rate that your monitors are capable of. Any active dp to dvi adapter should work. If you are worried about brand differences, you'd probably need to ask more actual users to chime in with what they are using.
The price didn't drop per say, what happened is original adapters were all dual link, and they still cost at the price you mentioned. However single link adapters were later introduced, coming in much cheaper. But keep the differences of the two in mind, since they are not interchangeable.