• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

NVIDIA & Multi-display Gaming Editorial @ [H]

Wow I would rather have seen Roadhouse or Kyle's mullet. Video on Hard needs some improvement in production at least show a CES booth babe.
 
I don't knock Nvidia's parts just their proprietary gimmickry. I don't begrudge them with Physx that is theirs. To lock out normal DX or other features from competitor cards is flaky at best. Are they so uncomfortable with their own products on a level playing field that they decided they had to handicap ATI in the game's coding?

In my view they are intentionally hurting my gaming experience in an attempt to line their pockets through deceptive marketing. I also hold the game programmers in the same low light for allowing Nvidia to bastardize their products.

With their current behavior and marketing BS I chose not to buy their products for the same reason I won't buy Intel for the time being. I am at the lower end of the market anyway so AMD fits my thin wallet. I vote with my money.

I just discovered this site and enjoyed the way you guys called Nvidia's BS. I expect if AMD/ATI pulls similar BS you'll slam them too. Thanks
 
MrLonghair said:
Hey XMAN, shouldn't you be on Beyond3d getting told to hush up by administrators, moderators and people in the industry who actually knows what's going on right now?




Multi-display usage in the *finity way has a much better chance at becoming as mainstream as a games console than 3D Vision/polarize glasses 3D, or my statistics on people who can handle several hours of this 120hz tech with no ill effect is seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

You are aware this works in both 3D and 2D right. 2D is how Eyefinity works now.
 
Hang on...did I hear the video right? You need 3 Displayport monitors to run this Surround thing or whatever they call it?
 
A computer with 3 Display Ports, not DisplayPort™s, and currently no nVidia consumer product has more than 2.
 
DarthBeavis said:
So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it? Are you arguing all technology developments should be open source?...
Click to expand...

What Kyle is saying I believe, is that Nvidia has a tendency to, when given the opportunity, stick their fingers into games, and insist on their proprietary code being inserted, which might in this case, just 'coincidently' prevent Amd cards from running multi display set ups.

ie. Directly sabotage the competition's tech. A very low business tactic that should not go unnoticed or unpunished.
 
RamonGTP said:
i can see how bezels may bother some people but I don't see it as that big of a deal. My main monitor will be my center, that's where my focus is. Left and right are for peripheral vision. For that purpose, the bezels aren't that big of a deal. You're not focusing on an area the entire length of your desk, and frankly, you probably wouldn't want to unless you're several feet away.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear just how many people who have actually sat down and used Eyefinity/Nvidia Surround for an appreciable amount of time and still say that the bezels actually bother them, or distract from the experience. It seems to be something that people say when they view it 3rd person or see a screenshot.

Of course, Bezel-less is the ideal but realistically, the bezels become a non-issue because of what you mentioned in this quoute.

In fact, on a related note, perhaps there are ways that developers might increase framerates in surround situations by reducing the graphics quality in the extremes of the periphery?
 
A computer with 3 Display Ports, not DisplayPort™s, and currently no nVidia consumer product has more than 2.
Click to expand...
It had better be the former. Because I have no idea where I would get a DisplayPort monitor in New Zealand.
 
Kyle said:
For god’s sake NVIDIA, if you pull this bullshit where NVIDIA Surround "games" will not work on Eyefinity configurations, we are going to beat NVIDIA down repeatedly and publicly for harming the PC gaming industry. Keep those crappy proprietary PhysX policies, but if you start messing with OUR multi-display gaming and not letting it remain "open platform," I will personally lead the mob with the burning torches to the castle gates. And we will be fully prepared to use the torches. I will personally lead a boycott of NVIDIA products if I see NVIDIA harm multi-display gaming in the marketplace through an IP grab. Multi-display gaming belongs to gamers, not NVIDIA.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is amazing!!! I've never seen anything like this before!

It shows how you really care for the gaming community! You're the man, Kyle!

Especially so for calling PhsyX "crappy". If it were not for PhysX, nearly half of the gaming community (those with ATI cards) would be able to enjoy Batman:AA without it looking so bland, since it would actually look even better using Havok or Infernal physics (like the awesome-looking Ghostbusters video game).

However, one thing that I would like to criticize ATI for is that they have never really tried to work on the Stereo 3D solution. Nvidia has been working on it for nearly a decade, even during the decline of CRT monitors. In 2007, Nvidia's S-3D support finally became "exclusive" to Zalman 3D monitors with polarized glasses, but I still managed to hack my 8800GTX using nHancer so that it works in WinXP with shutter glasses and my CRT montior. Now, NV is selling those ridiculously-priced wireless shutter glasses that retail for $200! I'm now boycotting NV by refusing to buy a G92 or GT200 card since the hack does not work on anything newer than a G80, and does not work on Vista or Win7. Those wired shutterglasses with an universal VGA pass-thru dongle usually sell for only $10 on ebay (they were bundled with video cards like GF4's many years ago).

At least NV is trying to push the 3D Blu-ray standard. Standard 3D will be the next big thing, almost as good as going from black-and-white to color TV! We just need a good 3D big-screen that does not require glasses, that's all, and Samsung is trying to make new 3D displays right now.
 
I just saw the video on your front page "NVIDIA Talks NV Surround and Fermi - kinda" and that was a whole lot of nothing the NVidia guy spouted.
He talked at length how they are demoing Fermi but didnt show us a single THING.
They need better PR chaps or something to actually show us.
 
Mike89 said:
It's clear as a bell that Hardocp thinks this triple monitor gaming stuff is the greatest gaming thing since sliced bread and will change the world.

I just don't see it. This is not going to be for the mainstream and never will. The average gaming joe just isn't going to go for this. Too expensive, to much upkeep, too much fiddling, too much space it takes up, etc.

I don't see this catching on any more than SLI did. It's going to basically be for the rich and/or people who don't have anything better to spend their money on.

I'm a gamer and game on PC just as much as anyone and more than most self proclaimed gamers. I knew I would never go for more than one video card in my computer and know that I will never go for more than one monitor. I just don't need it to enchance my gaming experience more than it already is (which is pretty damn good). And Fck them 3D glasses!

Just my two cents about that and it's worth nothing to anyone but me.

As far as Nvidia goes, I would not be a bit surprised if they come up with some proprietary crap like they did with PhysX, in fact I expect it.
Click to expand...


I really have to shake my head at how many "enthusiasts" and "gamers" are armed and ready to shoot down new tech and innovative ideas.

I mean, you're making a big deal out of nothing here aren't you? You're free to buy stuff as you see fit. I'm free to buy as I see fit. No one's forcing you to comply with some standard of using only extremely expensive high end gear. And it's not like game devs are going ot start rolling out games without consideration for people on rigs of more average configurations.

Not all gamers wish to be in the 1280x1024-single--video-card crowd you associate yourself with. Multiple video cards and monitors never were intended to be sold to the average joe in the mainstream market. But it's not like this somehow makes the extremly-high-end market insignificant for game and hardware devs. While the percentage of all gamers willing to spend $800+ on video cards and $1500+ on 3 monitors (IPS) is going to be small, I have no doubt that this tech will be very powerful as quality displays become more affordable.

I took a gamble about 5 years ago to step up a 24" widescreen FW900 from my traditional 4:3 CRT. Back then I was wowed and my gaming experience was greatly enhanced. I have no doubt that the games i play would be greatly enhanced by going to an EF or 3DVS setup. I'm just waiting for the dust to settle with new drivers from NV and ATI, Fermi's release, and the release of new LED and 120Hz monitors .
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
Hang on...did I hear the video right? You need 3 Displayport monitors to run this Surround thing or whatever they call it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same nvidia rep, but one said that you need to run SLI on GT200 gpu's, because you need at least 3 display outputs. Obviously GT200 isn't using display port outs. Anyways, it really is impossible to require 3 Displayport monitors, since displayport is signal compatible with all other video-outs. Unless Nvidia is getting into the monitor business, and if so I'd expect them to release NfinityDisplayX ports, which will electrocute you every time you badmouth nvidia on the web.
 
Rock&Roll said:
I really have to shake my head at how many "enthusiasts" and "gamers" are armed and ready to shoot down new tech and innovative ideas.

I mean, you're making a big deal out of nothing here aren't you? You're free to buy stuff as you see fit. I'm free to buy as I see fit. No one's forcing you to comply with some standard of using only extremely expensive high end gear. And it's not like game devs are going ot start rolling out games without consideration for people on rigs of more average configurations.
Click to expand...

I did't see him as shooting it down really. He made an observation that [H] editors are very excited about the tech and provided his own opinion on why it would be what they think it is. Frankly, while I think the tech is pretty sweet, I agree with him. I mean, think about it, how many people do you think are going to ditch their consoles and spend thousands on a gaming PC with an eyefinity setup?

PC gaming is already better then console gaming as far as capabilities are concerned, but as far as popularity, it falls way short. There is a simple reason for this, accessibility. Both in terms of cost and general knowledge. EyeFinity-type technologies only make PC gaming capabilities even greater than they already are vs consoles, but at the cost of making it even less accessable.

Think of it this way, the main reason you see a lot more Camery's on the road than you do a Mercedes S-Class is becuase of accessibility. Now, is making the S-Class even better and more expensive going to change that? Not likely.
 
RamonGTP said:
EyeFinity-type technologies only make PC gaming capabilities even greater than they already are vs consoles, but at the cost of making it even less accessable.

Think of it this way, the main reason you see a lot more Camery's on the road than you do a Mercedes S-Class is becuase of accessibility. Now, is making the S-Class even better and more expensive going to change that? Not likely.
Click to expand...

Your argument is valid, to a point. However, I think average or highly accessible stuff is for people who just aren't interested enough to learn more about a subject. Ever try to teach someone to overclock who quickly lost interest to learn once you told them to go into their BIOS? There's a threshold some people just aren't willing to cross. Many times, because it will either cost them too much money or too much of their time to go that extra mile. Spending extra money to get a murcielago is like spending the extra money to get phase change or water cooling. It's something you'd only do if you were willing to spend money to be able to push the limits of your respective machine.

In my case, I am much more happy to take on some extra expense use the more flexible and advanced computer gaming systems. Consoles are for people who don't take as much interest in hardware and tinkering as I do (at least not when mixed with gaming). I love having the wide array of options and choices to make in purchasing computer hardware. In other words, different strokes for different folks.
 
Last edited:
RamonGTP said:
[snip]
Think of it this way, the main reason you see a lot more Camery's on the road than you do a Mercedes S-Class is becuase of accessibility. Now, is making the S-Class even better and more expensive going to change that? Not likely.
Click to expand...

Yes but on the S-Class Clubs homepage/forum you complain about the Camery having better mpg and "who needs such a big, expensive car?" because? . . .
 
This is great news for hard core PC gamers. And I will happily join the [H]orde and carry one of those torches, though from afar, if this undesirable nightmare scenario ever plays out.

Thank you for being so clear on this potential situation Kyle, this kind of passion and unfiltered opinion, is absolutely one of the reasons I have kept returning to [H].

Multi monitor gaming is going to be great for PC gaming in general (if nightmare scenario stays home). Right now no doubt mostly making a splash with enthusiasts, but how about in a few years, when displays that are already ridiculously cheap compared to just a few years ago, will be even cheaper and better? These technologies are exactly what the PC gaming market needs. And would provide a much needed counterpoint to console gaming as a bonus.

I cant wait to see more of this. Please let it be one of those good stories, where old enemies decide to work towards mutual interests, their profits and their consumers.

PS: Could nvidia possibly had come up with a worse name... "nvidia surround", seriously?! OK, so this is what they were thinking: "Lets take a word that EVERYONE has associated with SOUND technology for ever and mate it with our VISUAL tech!" Great, that makes perfect sense if you want to come across as vague or ambiguous. I mean, do they really think that the monitors surround you when you sit there in FRONT of them..?

PPS: Names do not matter to me, but its not going to make it easier to sell. Its funny in a tragic way, that this was given the go by someone. I cant wait to get myself a pair of rear monitors, just a couple of 22"s and then set the delay perfectly...
 
RamonGTP said:
I did't see him as shooting it down really. He made an observation that [H] editors are very excited about the tech and provided his own opinion on why it would be what they think it is. Frankly, while I think the tech is pretty sweet, I agree with him. I mean, think about it, how many people do you think are going to ditch their consoles and spend thousands on a gaming PC with an eyefinity setup?

PC gaming is already better then console gaming as far as capabilities are concerned, but as far as popularity, it falls way short. There is a simple reason for this, accessibility. Both in terms of cost and general knowledge. EyeFinity-type technologies only make PC gaming capabilities even greater than they already are vs consoles, but at the cost of making it even less accessable.

Think of it this way, the main reason you see a lot more Camery's on the road than you do a Mercedes S-Class is becuase of accessibility. Now, is making the S-Class even better and more expensive going to change that? Not likely.
Click to expand...

New technology like this is always going to be expensive and will always only be for the enthusiast. How many people bought 3D Accelerators when they first hit the market? I'll bet you it wasn't a lot. Yet now no gamer can live without a video card. Consoles have dedicated GPUs as well. LCDs were ridiculously expensive when they first came out, but now almost every PC gamer has one and most people buying new TVs get LCDs. There is a barrier of entry here and not everyone is going to be able to afford it and thats fine, but the effects it has can easily trickle down into other areas. No one should be against new technology. The whole "not everyone can afford it so it doesn't matter" mentality is, quite frankly, stupid. The technology both companies are developing to make these types of things possible can be used in other areas and their ideas will likely be borrowed by other companies and altered to fit other needs. No one is saying that this is going to change PC gaming tomorrow or even within the next year, but it has the potential to make a lot of changes happen. Will it convince console-only people to run out and build their own computers? Probably not, but it might get some people's attention. What do you think will happen when ATI and Nvidia start developing GPUs to push those super high resolutions? That will greatly effect (in a good way) how those GPUs work on normal resolutions.

Personally I can't stand 3D, it gives me a headache and I refuse to deal with it. However, I can see the potential future for it. Something like this is interest and deserves to be pushed heavily because it can only lead to further advancements years down the road. I'm fairly certain both ATI and Nvidia are throughly aware of who these types of products appeal to and aren't expecting mass market adoption.
 
Those were some serious Words you Fired across Nvidia's Bow, I surely hope you mean them, as the Gaming Industry is Currently the One Revenue Stream that appears to be Successfull at the Momen. I for One would not appreciate any IP Shenanigans like you described, and I too would Vote with my Dollars, and in a Tight Economy who in their Right Mind would attempt something like that? Hmmn!
 
Sweet. I can now dump the 5970 and go back to my triple 285 rig for some sweet multi-monitor gaming lol :D
 
Maybe someday we'll hear some actual information about the card because so far nvidia refuses to release anything. That is not a good sign to me.
 
You're only hearing anything about it now because of CES. Fermi isn't due out for another 3+ months. Info really doesn't start to flow until about 2 weeks before release. While general prejudgments are pointing to fermi being the nvidia equivalent to R600, success wise, it would not be a great idea to hold those prejudgments too seriously until real benchmarks are seen.
 
Deusfaux said:
there is so way I would ever think of eyefinity as anything more than a gimmick as long as it requires monitors bezels breaking up the view. completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Your loss. I don't have as nice of an Eyefinity setup as some people but I'd have a hard time going back to just one monitor for gaming. Something about it that video just can't convey when you can use the entirety of your peripheral vision in games. That being said I know its expensive I've requested that some of the lower Eyefinity solutions be tested to allow us to see how this scales with less expensive monitors/GPU SKU's. I am however also interested in a few cases where a 5870 can't have everything maxed with antialiasing, to see if now or in the future crossfire enables some situations in which you currently have to drop down a rez or lower some settings to get a playable framerate.
 
Blackbird0147 said:
Eyefinity still comes on top because of there ablity to run three displays on one gpu.
Click to expand...

Not for me.
I'm running Xfire 5770's and cannot use 3 DVI ports.
I would need to either buy an expensive active displayport adapter or buy a displayport monitor.

I have come to dislike displayport because :
a) its being forced on us without merit on ATI cards
b) diversifying display connection standards can only lead to more confusion and costs.
c) there is no need for displayport, hdmi is more than capable.
d) I'm a bit annoyed because AMD could display from both cards, avoiding this unnecessary mess for those with 2 cards.
 
Nenu said:
Not for me.
I'm running Xfire 5770's and cannot use 3 DVI ports.
I would need to either buy an expensive active displayport adapter or buy a displayport monitor.

I have come to dislike displayport because :
a) its being forced on us without merit on ATI cards
b) diversifying display connection standards can only lead to more confusion and costs.
c) there is no need for displayport, hdmi is more than capable.
d) I'm a bit annoyed because AMD could display from both cards, avoiding this unnecessary mess for those with 2 cards.
Click to expand...

I for one think we should get rid of HDMI and keep display port.
 
phide said:
My only question here would be: could NVIDIA actually do this? As it stands, Eyefinity is basically taking abnormally large rendered frames and spanning it across multiple displays at the hardware/driver level, correct? Looking at 3D Surround, I'd guess it works in the exact same manner and requires no specific game support beyond being able to define that resolution in the game's configuration files.

If we look back at Batman: AA, that was a unique scenario. NVIDIA had the capability to lock out MSAA on AMD cards because the Eidos had to implement MSAA resolve in software (ostensibly because of deferred shading somewhere in the pipeline). So, NVIDIA supplied Eidos with the code with the VID lock. With Eyefinity, if it's all driver-level, how would NVIDIA approach being able to lock out AMD in a TWIMTBP game if no custom code is required for games to operate with 3D Surround?

The only way I could see this as being a possibility if NVIDIA eventually ends up supplying developers with specific code to "enhance" 3D Surround which somehow manages to break Eyefinity at the same time.
Click to expand...

It would be very easy for NVidia to do this, at a far less technical level than the AA example in Batman even... The way in which they'd do it has already been alluded to within this thread as well. They could help developers in arranging game UI elements within the displays (so they're on the center display rather than the side displays), they could help implement special code that takes into account borders/bezzels on a game per game basis (which ATI is supposedly working on but it's still nowhere to be seen), so on and so forth.

None of those tweaks are highly technical (nor proprietary, just like the Batman AA deal), but they could all be tied to TWIMTBP programs and deals so that they're only implemented w/NV hardware and not ATI hardware... Yeah, on a basic level your game would still work w/Eyefinity regardless, just not as well. Anyone that believes that NV couldn't do this is deluding themselves...

That being said, if NV actually adds multiple-display support to old cards and I'm able to get it running by adding another GTX 260 to my rig I'd love them long time. :p Someone suggested as much in this thread, highly unlikely if you ask me tho, they're way more likely to actually require a SLI setup to get it running; with a PR spin along the lines of "we want to insure the gaming experience on multiple displays is satisfactory andSLI is necesssary for that yadda yadda".
 
Last edited:
Nenu said:
Not for me.
I'm running Xfire 5770's and cannot use 3 DVI ports.
I would need to either buy an expensive active displayport adapter or buy a displayport monitor.

I have come to dislike displayport because :
a) its being forced on us without merit on ATI cards
b) diversifying display connection standards can only lead to more confusion and costs.
c) there is no need for displayport, hdmi is more than capable.
d) I'm a bit annoyed because AMD could display from both cards, avoiding this unnecessary mess for those with 2 cards.
Click to expand...

display port is the successor to DVI.

DisplayPort >>> HDMI in the sense that it doesn't take royalties, meaning theoretically its easier to integrate into a monitor/video card than to license HDMI, also see future spec of DP where it allows you to daisy chain multiple monitors.
 
Those royalties only amount to much if your the producer buying hundreds of thousands of parts. The cost passed down to the buyer is minuscule compared to the cost of the hardware. Nevertheless, since DP is already on the rollout, I'm fully behind adopting it. What do I have to lose? My most crucial displays are still running over D-SUB and BNC. I suppose it's time to drop the CRT? (FFS I wish there was a DECENT 120Hz LCD for sale, not some TN crap)
 
Does anyone know if you can run 3D Vision if you have both an ATI and Nvidia card in your system? Been reading up on it a bit more and am starting to think that perhaps some of the settings would make it possible that my eyes won't hurt while playing it, but I don't want to give up my 5850. Or would it just force you to connect the monitor to the Nvidia card, rendering the ATI one pointless?
 
Nenu said:
Not for me.
I'm running Xfire 5770's and cannot use 3 DVI ports.
I would need to either buy an expensive active displayport adapter or buy a displayport monitor.

I have come to dislike displayport because :
a) its being forced on us without merit on ATI cards
b) diversifying display connection standards can only lead to more confusion and costs.
c) there is no need for displayport, hdmi is more than capable.
d) I'm a bit annoyed because AMD could display from both cards, avoiding this unnecessary mess for those with 2 cards.
Click to expand...

There is a technical reason behind it, they didn't do it just to do it.
 
Rock&Roll said:
You're only hearing anything about it now because of CES. Fermi isn't due out for another 3+ months. Info really doesn't start to flow until about 2 weeks before release. While general prejudgments are pointing to fermi being the nvidia equivalent to R600, success wise, it would not be a great idea to hold those prejudgments too seriously until real benchmarks are seen.
Click to expand...

March = 3+ months? What calander do you have?
 
Sorry if this has been asked before, this thread is long and I may have missed it.

So this should work with the GTX 280 & 260 correct? This is only a new software driver correct?

Thanks!
 
heatlesssun said:
Sorry if this has been asked before, this thread is long and I may have missed it.

So this should work with the GTX 280 & 260 correct? This is only a new software driver correct?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yeah. They were showing it off at CES on current generation cards along with Fermi. You already have SLI so all you'd need is three monitors once is out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top