Best 3 Monitor Setup for Eyefinity or Nvidia Surround?

[kill8r]

I could use some help please.

I am considering buying three monitors for a new eyefinity setup for pc gaming. I have never had a multi monitor setup and could really use some guidance. Please note that I am building a new high end rig (approx $5k) and am looking for screens that will do this setup justice (I have an budget of approx $1500 for screens but am flexible).

I came across the Dell U2414h which is meant to have the thinnest bezel on the market. However it has its downsides.

Positives:
+Thinnest Bezel available at 6mm
+ 24 inch screen size

Negatives:
- only 1080p
- 8ms response time
- 60hz refresh rate

A few questions please:

1. How bad is an 8ms response time in reality?
   
2. What would you consider the best screen for a multiscreen setup, considering performance, size and bezel?
   
3. Is it true running an eyefinity setup gives a larger view in a first person shooter rather than with one screen?
   
4. Would you rather have one amazing larger screen like http://pcmonitors.info/lg/lg-34um95-219-but-bigger?
   
5. What graphics cards would you run with a £1000 to £1200 GPU budget?

Thanks for the help!

 

[Andyk5]

8ms is not bad, don't worry about it too much, I doubt you will see any difference between 8ms and 2ms.

1080p, also not bad since you are talking about Eyefinity. What I mean with that is the negatives that you are listing with that monitor does not match with what you want to do with it.

For example if you did your eyefinity setup using 1440p or 1600p monitors, the amount of graphics card power you would need is huge. I ran 3x1440p monitors on nvidia surround for a year on dual GTX 680s and to get constant 60fps, I always had to turn things down.

You also list the 24inch as a negative, but when you are playing eyefinity with 27inch monitors, it is not that great IMO. It is just waaay too wide and even your peripheral vision does not make use of the side monitors completely.

You list 60Hz as a negative, but even if it had 120Hz refresh rate...what good is it to you? Running at 120fps on eyefinity is something very hard to achieve.

So overall, if we look at your "perfect" setup it looks like it is made out of 3 120Hz Asus ROG swift 1440p monitors.

2560x1440x3= roughly 11million pixels. Running them at 120Hz/120fps at max details....I don't think you can do that even with 3 780TI's.

 

[Dan]

^ nailed it. I'm running 3x 1080 monitors and find it perfect. My buddy has 3 Asian 1440 and we both agree it's too big. It also takes up a massive ammounts of room. I personally won't go higher then 23/24 inches.

 

[DoubleTap]

It would help if you discussed the games you like to play and (to the degree you know this about yourself) whether you prefer image quality (IPS) over high frame rate, low motion blur because that's the current dichotomy.

I run NV Surround on 3 ASUS VG248QE (144hz) monitors.

The color is not that great, but it's adequate and it's not that important to me compared to the high frame rate. I average about 80-100fps in BF4 - I run the screens at 144hz with VSync off. Whatever tearing there might be is trivial to my eyes.

One thing you might consider is running something similar but then mounting a nice IPS screen either above or below the three main screens.

Not all games work with Surround and it's a big letdown when I have to just run the center screen alone - everything seems tiny and claustrophobic so I almost never play games that don't work on all 3 screens (Supreme Commander series is the lone exception, but then I usually run it on 2 screens)

My plan is to add one of the new 34" 3440x1440 screens and mount it above my current screens. I have a very strong stand that is permanently mounted to my desk and will easily support the additional height and weight. I also have a desk that is so adjustable that I'll be able to put either screen at the proper height when I need to.

If I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably consider just going with one of the new 34" screens. As much as I love Surround, I think a 21:9 monitor is probably 80% as good in terms of actual immersion.

 

[kill8r]

It would help if you discussed the games you like to play and (to the degree you know this about yourself) whether you prefer image quality (IPS) over high frame rate, low motion blur because that's the current dichotomy.

I run NV Surround on 3 ASUS VG248QE (144hz) monitors.

The color is not that great, but it's adequate and it's not that important to me compared to the high frame rate. I average about 80-100fps in BF4 - I run the screens at 144hz with VSync off. Whatever tearing there might be is trivial to my eyes.

One thing you might consider is running something similar but then mounting a nice IPS screen either above or below the three main screens.

Not all games work with Surround and it's a big letdown when I have to just run the center screen alone - everything seems tiny and claustrophobic so I almost never play games that don't work on all 3 screens (Supreme Commander series is the lone exception, but then I usually run it on 2 screens)

My plan is to add one of the new 34" 3440x1440 screens and mount it above my current screens. I have a very strong stand that is permanently mounted to my desk and will easily support the additional height and weight. I also have a desk that is so adjustable that I'll be able to put either screen at the proper height when I need to.

If I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably consider just going with one of the new 34" screens. As much as I love Surround, I think a 21:9 monitor is probably 80% as good in terms of actual immersion.

Thank all for helpful advice!

Here is a breakdown of my game usage:
60% FPS
25% Strategy (Company of Heroes, Civ 5...)
15% 3rd person Elder Scrolls, WOW, Splinter Cell, Assasins Creed

 

[kill8r]

8ms is not bad, don't worry about it too much, I doubt you will see any difference between 8ms and 2ms.

1080p, also not bad since you are talking about Eyefinity. What I mean with that is the negatives that you are listing with that monitor does not match with what you want to do with it.

For example if you did your eyefinity setup using 1440p or 1600p monitors, the amount of graphics card power you would need is huge. I ran 3x1440p monitors on nvidia surround for a year on dual GTX 680s and to get constant 60fps, I always had to turn things down.

You also list the 24inch as a negative, but when you are playing eyefinity with 27inch monitors, it is not that great IMO. It is just waaay too wide and even your peripheral vision does not make use of the side monitors completely.

You list 60Hz as a negative, but even if it had 120Hz refresh rate...what good is it to you? Running at 120fps on eyefinity is something very hard to achieve.

So overall, if we look at your "perfect" setup it looks like it is made out of 3 120Hz Asus ROG swift 1440p monitors.

2560x1440x3= roughly 11million pixels. Running them at 120Hz/120fps at max details....I don't think you can do that even with 3 780TI's.

OUCH... 3 x 780tis couldn't handle it! I was hoping 3 x r9 290s could do the job

 

[BIGGRIMTIM]

I have 3 Dell U2410's in Eyefinity. I am going to switch to the Dell U3415W once it is released. I am getting tired of games not working correctly in Eyefinity. When they do it is amazing but some games do not work well.

 

[Morkai]

A few questions please:

1. How bad is an 8ms response time in reality?
   
2. What would you consider the best screen for a multiscreen setup, considering performance, size and bezel?
   
3. Is it true running an eyefinity setup gives a larger view in a first person shooter rather than with one screen?
   
4. Would you rather have one amazing larger screen like http://pcmonitors.info/lg/lg-34um95-219-but-bigger?
   
5. What graphics cards would you run with a £1000 to £1200 GPU budget?

Thanks for the help!

1. 8ms response time is likely listed as GTG, which means the actual slowest refresh is around 1.5-2 times that. It will be fine for browsing and office type work, and acceptable for slow games, but very blurry for fast games. Even 1ms listed monitors blur quite a bit in fast games. In my opinion, 8ms is atrocious for gaming.

2. I consider the Eizo FG2421 to be in a league of its own currently, the only reason to get any other monitor for gaming or mixed use involving gaming is budget. It doesn't have the smallest bezels, though. It does have the best picture quality in motion by far of any LCD, the highest contrast/best black level of any LCD monitor.

3. It depends completely on the game, more precisely how large FOV they allow. In some games you simply see 3x more. In some games you see LESS (zoomed slice of the standard aspect ratio), because they don't allow you to raise the FOV at all.

4. I would actually prefer one big ultrawide large sceen (nice to not have bezels, nice to not need surround), but i wouldnt switch to any of the current or upcoming offerings.
They are just too slow and blurry. The new 34" seems to be listed as 14ms GTG, which brings us back to the horrible blur of early 2000's IPS.

5. Since surround or 4k+ requires quite a lot of memory, it is a bit tricky to choose graphics cards, i wouldn't go with the 3GB cards (780, 780ti etc), but at that budget it is hard to afford 2x titan black (which i guess would be optimal).
Perhaps that 780ti version with 6GB memory, but I can't find a price for it?
Find 2x used titans?
Perhaps the AMD cards with 4GB ram are the best at that budget.
Or wait for maxwell? Nvidia have started releasing the first new cards, after all.

 

[CYB34]

2. I consider the Eizo FG2421 to be in a league of its own currently, the only reason to get any other monitor for gaming or mixed use involving gaming is budget. It doesn't have the smallest bezels, though. It does have the best picture quality in motion by far of any LCD, the highest contrast/best black level of any LCD monitor.

Check this out:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040374492&postcount=722
Not much positive feedback in that thread. Apparently they are in their own league alright...

 

[DoubleTap]

1. 8ms response time is likely listed as GTG, which means the actual slowest refresh is around 1.5-2 times that. It will be fine for browsing and office type work, and acceptable for slow games, but very blurry for fast games. Even 1ms listed monitors blur quite a bit in fast games. In my opinion, 8ms is atrocious for gaming.

2. I consider the Eizo FG2421 to be in a league of its own currently, the only reason to get any other monitor for gaming or mixed use involving gaming is budget. It doesn't have the smallest bezels, though. It does have the best picture quality in motion by far of any LCD, the highest contrast/best black level of any LCD monitor.

3. It depends completely on the game, more precisely how large FOV they allow. In some games you simply see 3x more. In some games you see LESS (zoomed slice of the standard aspect ratio), because they don't allow you to raise the FOV at all.

4. I would actually prefer one big ultrawide large sceen (nice to not have bezels, nice to not need surround), but i wouldnt switch to any of the current or upcoming offerings.
They are just too slow and blurry. The new 34" seems to be listed as 14ms GTG, which brings us back to the horrible blur of early 2000's IPS.

5. Since surround or 4k+ requires quite a lot of memory, it is a bit tricky to choose graphics cards, i wouldn't go with the 3GB cards (780, 780ti etc), but at that budget it is hard to afford 2x titan black (which i guess would be optimal).
Perhaps that 780ti version with 6GB memory, but I can't find a price for it?
Find 2x used titans?
Perhaps the AMD cards with 4GB ram are the best at that budget.
Or wait for maxwell? Nvidia have started releasing the first new cards, after all.

I disagree that 3GB is an issue in Surround - at least at 5760x1080, I've never run into an issue with memory - most of the time, I'm CPU bound - even with a 2600k that will run up to 5Ghz

I didn't know that the 3440x1440 panels were 14ms - that is a deal breaker for me, at least until I get a chance to really use one. I'll probably opt for the ASUS ROG 27" for my single monitor experience instead.

If I were building an NV Surround System right now, this is what I would do:

3x ASUS ROG 27" 144hz - GSync does NOT work in Surround, but you can still run this in surround in another mode, provided you have 3 display ports.

3x GPU - go with 6GB cards - 780Ti or the new Titan Black or whatever.

Intel Enthusiast Platform - either SB-E or IB-E but really, I think Haswell-E will be worth waiting for - and if you wait for that, you might just wait for the next Nvidia GPU.

That said, I'm very happy with my regular 780s and my 24" monitors - I can't max the fps on big games like BF4, but it still runs a lot higher than 60hz

 

[kill8r]

I disagree that 3GB is an issue in Surround - at least at 5760x1080, I've never run into an issue with memory - most of the time, I'm CPU bound - even with a 2600k that will run up to 5Ghz

I didn't know that the 3440x1440 panels were 14ms - that is a deal breaker for me, at least until I get a chance to really use one. I'll probably opt for the ASUS ROG 27" for my single monitor experience instead.

If I were building an NV Surround System right now, this is what I would do:

3x ASUS ROG 27" 144hz - GSync does NOT work in Surround, but you can still run this in surround in another mode, provided you have 3 display ports.

3x GPU - go with 6GB cards - 780Ti or the new Titan Black or whatever.

Intel Enthusiast Platform - either SB-E or IB-E but really, I think Haswell-E will be worth waiting for - and if you wait for that, you might just wait for the next Nvidia GPU.

That said, I'm very happy with my regular 780s and my 24" monitors - I can't max the fps on big games like BF4, but it still runs a lot higher than 60hz

After giving things much thought I am considering waiting for the ASUS ROG 27".

A few questions:

1. Is 27" too big for an Nvidea surround setup?
2. Would 2 x Hydro Copper Titan Blacks handle everything on Ultra for the next 12 months at least or is 3 a must?
3. Would a water cooled 4770k be up to the task or should I up the CPU and if so which one?
4. Is there stand for the three monitors you would recommend?

Thanks for all the amazing advice!

 

[Morkai]

After giving things much thought I am considering waiting for the ASUS ROG 27".

A few questions:

1. Is 27" too big for an Nvidea surround setup?
2. Would 2 x Hydro Copper Titan Blacks handle everything on Ultra for the next 12 months at least or is 3 a must?
3. Would a water cooled 4770k be up to the task or should I up the CPU and if so which one?
4. Is there stand for the three monitors you would recommend?

Thanks for all the amazing advice!

1. That depends on your deskspace and personal preferences. I think 27" is a nice size for surround.

2. Tri-sli scaling is very hit and miss, IMO it is never worth it to buy a third card unless you do it for one or more specific games you know it scales well for. (for some games it gives less fps than 2 cards, some only a few % increase, and yet again others it scales well or fully).
There are also no motherboards that can do pci-e 3.0 x16 x16 x16, max is x16 x16 x8 unless you have 2 cpus, i think, and with tri sli cards in such a monster resolution, that bus bandwidth will probably matter a lot.
In such a wide FOV; three times as much content needs to be rendered, and i find that CPU is very often the bottleneck in surround (with an overclocked 3930k) so you can not run every game in ultra no matter the amount of gfx cards.
Two cards is the sweet spot for price/performance.

3. An overclocked 4770k in itself would probably do fine, but the problem is the architecture of the chipset. It only supports one graphics card with PCI-E 3.0 x16, if you use three it seems to use 1 × PCIe 3.0 ×8 + 2 × PCIe 3.0 ×4. This will be a problem in high resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1150
The only option is x79, afaik.

 

[kill8r]

1. That depends on your deskspace and personal preferences. I think 27" is a nice size for surround.

2. Tri-sli scaling is very hit and miss, IMO it is never worth it to buy a third card unless you do it for one or more specific games you know it scales well for. (for some games it gives less fps than 2 cards, some only a few % increase, and yet again others it scales well or fully).
There are also no motherboards that can do pci-e 3.0 x16 x16 x16, max is x16 x16 x8 unless you have 2 cpus, i think, and with tri sli cards in such a monster resolution, that bus bandwidth will probably matter a lot.
In such a wide FOV; three times as much content needs to be rendered, and i find that CPU is very often the bottleneck in surround (with an overclocked 3930k) so you can not run every game in ultra no matter the amount of gfx cards.
Two cards is the sweet spot for price/performance.

3. An overclocked 4770k in itself would probably do fine, but the problem is the architecture of the chipset. It only supports one graphics card with PCI-E 3.0 x16, if you use three it seems to use 1 × PCIe 3.0 ×8 + 2 × PCIe 3.0 ×4. This will be a problem in high resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1150
The only option is x79, afaik.

I am a bit of noob so forgive my lack of knowledge. Playing on maxed out settings is must for me so please advise on what specs to change..

1) ok cool

2) ok two cards it is. Does i change things if one goes for 4 SLI instead of 3? Maybe I wil go with 2 for now then add two more later.

3) I am not totally following you. So do I need to change the processor and motherboard or just the motherboard? Is the x79 Champion ok https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-x79champion or do I need to upgrade to the Extreme https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-x79extreme11

 

[Morkai]

I am a bit of noob so forgive my lack of knowledge. Playing on maxed out settings is must for me so please advise on what specs to change..

1) ok cool

2) ok two cards it is. Does i change things if one goes for 4 SLI instead of 3? Maybe I wil go with 2 for now then add two more later.

3) I am not totally following you. So do I need to change the processor and motherboard or just the motherboard? Is the x79 Champion ok https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-x79champion or do I need to upgrade to the Extreme https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-x79extreme11

2. tril-sli and quad-sli are both similar, great for some games, useless for some.
It's best if you check some benchmarks for the games you play/want to play and see if they support it well.
Going for two good cards on a platform that allows for upgrade to 3/4 later is a good plan.

3. If you use a x79 motherboard, then you need to change the CPU as well (4930k, for example).
If you stick to two cards, however, It might work well enough with 4770k.

If you already own a 4770k, then check some benchmarks and see how it seems to perform with SLI, tri-SLI etc according to benchmarks in higher resolutions. (It is important that the benchmarks are in high resolutions, otherwise the bus speed won't affect it - SLI works perfectly fine on these in normal resolutions).

I have no experience with either of those motherboards you linked, but according to the specs both should work fine with SLI, tri-SLI and quad-SLI it seems. You'd better find some sort of review and/or benchmarks and see.

 

[kill8r]

2. tril-sli and quad-sli are both similar, great for some games, useless for some.
It's best if you check some benchmarks for the games you play/want to play and see if they support it well.
Going for two good cards on a platform that allows for upgrade to 3/4 later is a good plan.

3. If you use a x79 motherboard, then you need to change the CPU as well (4930k, for example).
If you stick to two cards, however, It might work well enough with 4770k.

If you already own a 4770k, then check some benchmarks and see how it seems to perform with SLI, tri-SLI etc according to benchmarks in higher resolutions. (It is important that the benchmarks are in high resolutions, otherwise the bus speed won't affect it - SLI works perfectly fine on these in normal resolutions).

I have no experience with either of those motherboards you linked, but according to the specs both should work fine with SLI, tri-SLI and quad-SLI it seems. You'd better find some sort of review and/or benchmarks and see.

Thanks for the help!

I will go for two cards with the flexibility to add two more.

I haven't bought the 4770k, so make a change isn't a problem. Will a 4930k handle the task or do I need to go for the 4960k Extreme?

 

[Skott]

I agree with some of the others. The fewer cards you need the better off you are. Less complications and hassles. So two cards would be better than three or four in that respect. If money isn't a major concern I'd get two of those Titan Blacks that have 6GHz memory and see how that works out. I'd also go for the 4930k just to make sure I had the engine power. Water cool it and OC the heck out of it.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I have 3 Dell U2410's in Eyefinity. I am going to switch to the Dell U3415W once it is released. I am getting tired of games not working correctly in Eyefinity. When they do it is amazing but some games do not work well.

I'm also stuck between 3 2414 vs single ultra wide. damnit all