interesting. this i haven't heard. their sys requirements page doesn't mention anything like that. how about dvi to vga adapters?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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 surround?
- Thread starter wadec22
- Start date
interesting. this i haven't heard. their sys requirements page doesn't mention anything like that. how about dvi to vga adapters?
night_2004
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,229
The only reason it will work with GT200 based solutions is because nVidia has to do something to keep more of the masses from flocking to ATI's Eyefinity.
If people with GT200 cards had to upgrade to GF100 cards to get this feature, they'd buy ATI cards instead. Now it is just a matter of time as to when the drivers will be released and how well they work...and how long people with GT200 cards are willing to wait.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,312
are you sure that's not for surround 3D? I know that you have to use DL-DVI to use the 3D vision kit currently (no HDMI support for it)
I don't see why you couldn't run a 3 monitor setup on HDMI
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
No the reason it works is because its a software solution and in this case being backwards compatible with older hardware is an advantage over a hardware solution. Plenty of GT200 customers are going to GF100 regardless. But true the proof will be in the pudding but I suspect that this is going to work at least as well as Eyefinity overall.
Last edited:
i read through the link you posted, it does confirm no dvi to hdmi, no one mentions dvi to vga.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
When I saw that I thought it was a typo, why would you want to down convert to VGA?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
But would you actually be using that monitor in a surround setup since all the monitors would need to be the same resolution. I would think that just for a monitor attached that wasn't part of a surround setup that would be find, but then I'm not sure how that would work in relation to surround. Would all attached monitors have to part of the surround setup and just how many monitors can you have attached?
I have a fair number of questions myself.
I have a fair number of questions myself.
King Icewind
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5,441
Don't suppose ATI will release the same as Nvidia for their 4xxx series, providing they are in crossfire?
i think they all need to be set at the same resolution, not necessarily their native rez. it'll be interesting to see. softTH is extremely unrefined and the setup works fine with that, but who know. currently the 26 is my center and the 24 on the side.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Eyefinity is hardware based so I don't think its possible.
If true, this blows and garuntees my next upgrade will be an AMD card. I use TV's for my monitors so DVI->HDMI cables all the way around. It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference since its no real conversion, but if they really did something this stupid I'll be trying to unload my 260's as soon as possible.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me either but then you have to deal with DisplayPort adpapters with Eyefinity. Plus we really have to see how well this performs. Eyefinity is far from bullet proof, especially with multi-GPU. If nVidia's surround solution is more solid in a multi-GPU setup they will have won the high-end multi-monitor wars for now.
From what I can figure the way Surround is going to work is whichever card's turn it is to render the image will have to send the frame buffer across the SLI link to the other card for display, so each alternating frame the buffer gets sent the opposite direction.
Since they capped it at 5760x1080 it seems to imply they've tested the bandwidth cap for AFR sending frame buffer back and forth and 5760x1080 was the max resolution it will do without having to dump it across the PCI-e lanes like SoftTH does. So I would think there won't be a significant performance penalty for doing the display output with nVidia's method at or below this resolution of 5760x1080.
So no 5760x1200 but still pretty good considering the limitation of the method.. but we'll still have to wait and see if performance really turns out ok.
Tri sli scaling on the 400 series could stand some improvement at this point and it will without a doubt as time passes with drivers. 200 series tri sli scaling is quite good on most games as it stands. I ran tri 260 core 216's for almost a year and a half and they were great, impressive actually.
Eyefinity is nice and the ability to run it on one card sounds nice but no way in hell would I ever attempt it. Sub 60fps or even a hellish consoleish 30 fps just to play at 5000 res with cut down settings? Pass. I rather game on one large screen at 1080p with every setting cranked and aa coming out of my ass with frames to spare. That's how I roll. I've always been a quality over quantity guy though, just my preference.
So to be honest anyone who likes to call out nvidia for their so called less elegant solution requiring sli for triple screen I laugh since what true hardcore pc enthusiast/gamer wouldn't run cf/sli at that sick res? Maybe I'm off my rocker. /shrug.
necrophile
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
Strange how everyone always thinks of only gaming when discussing this, and I suppose with nvidia it will always be for that only, for ati, they have opened far more markets than just gaming. An easy and cheap solution to multimonitors.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Huh? Multiple monitors have been around for years and this is about scaling an app across multiple monitors to create a single image. Games are one of the few applications where this makes sense. Few people would want to deal with Word documents at 5760x1080.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,915
Spanning has been available for a LONG time...it just sucks in all but a few specific uses.
necrophile
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
From my understanding there has not really been a consumer card that can handle three monitors, especially not as one desktop.
You have had matrox with there own cards and there seperate dual and triple head options but as far as ease of use and simplicity from what I have read eyefinity would trump most other options.
Ati have surely as I have said, opened up markets for themselves in terms of the range of people who would be interested in there products.
You have had matrox with there own cards and there seperate dual and triple head options but as far as ease of use and simplicity from what I have read eyefinity would trump most other options.
Ati have surely as I have said, opened up markets for themselves in terms of the range of people who would be interested in there products.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Three monitors is VERY rare in the consumer space but its always be easy and cheap to do with multiple graphics cards.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
This might change now. Prices of monitors are on an all time low and there is definitely a game changer running 3X game content with 3 screens vs. 1 screen. 
With both ATI and Nvidia supporting multi-monitors, and also advertising with them, I can see a drastical increase of usage. Especially considering its getting more users which will again show more users how good it is. Even kids can combine monitors when they meet and game with 3 screens if they wish, if one of them has the requirements (either an adapter with ATI/cheap DP to VGA or Sapphire Eyefinity adapter or SLI with Nvidia).
Considering how few had a large LCD due to price and availability only a few years ago and now when large LCD's are cheap and available many have it, I hope that multi-monitor gaming will at least increase due to the same.
With both ATI and Nvidia supporting multi-monitors, and also advertising with them, I can see a drastical increase of usage. Especially considering its getting more users which will again show more users how good it is. Even kids can combine monitors when they meet and game with 3 screens if they wish, if one of them has the requirements (either an adapter with ATI/cheap DP to VGA or Sapphire Eyefinity adapter or SLI with Nvidia).
Considering how few had a large LCD due to price and availability only a few years ago and now when large LCD's are cheap and available many have it, I hope that multi-monitor gaming will at least increase due to the same.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I'm sure you're right as that's the natural progression of most technologies. Initially exspesive and complex and limited to high-end users only to become more and more mainstream. Just look at something like SLI or Crossfire. A kid and go out and pick up a couple of 5770s and some cheap 1440x900 monitors for only part of a summer job's pay these days.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
I think so.
WSGF is the worlds largest resource for multi-monitor solutions and I've noticed a dramatic increase in users after the launch of Eyefinity. Many have SLI already, so the launch of Nvidia's 256 drivers will give them multi-monitor capabilities with them. I predict a great increase of multi-monitor users from Nvidia as well. This is great for everyone, since the size of the userbase often determine how well the support is by developers. Thats why I am very excited that Nvidia chose to support multi-monitor gaming as well!
Well it is less elegant. Sure, YOU may not want to run triple monitors off of one card, but I'm perfectly happy doing so. I can still max many of the games at even 5760x1200 with a single 5870. There are some games where I find myself wanting CF, but not enough to buy another card. Its a matter of options.
Intel_Hydralisk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,743
Most people running eyefinity are running one card. I'm very satisfied with my single 5870 right now.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
But how many settings to you have to turn off or down to do it? If I have to eviscerate the visual quality of a game to do multi-monitor I'm not that interested. I'm doing 3x SLI for my multi-monitor setup not because I have to, but because I WANT TO CRANK THAT SHIT UP!
Intel_Hydralisk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,743
But how many settings to you have to turn off or down to do it? If I have to eviscerate the visual quality of a game to do multi-monitor I'm not that interested. I'm doing 3x SLI for my multi-monitor setup not because I have to, but because I WANT TO CRANK THAT SHIT UP!
Sure if I had $1500 for video cards I'd grab some more.
Turning down one or two settings (i.e. things like ambient occlusion / AA) that are huge hits on FPS make just about every game playable. Obviously if I'd rather play with eye candy up on a single monitor I still have the option to do so (did it for Metro 2033 and will probably do it for Crysis 2). But personally you just can't compare something like anti-aliasing to playing in triple wide. Can't really make a judgment call until you've experienced it yourself.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I totally agree and hope to join you soon that experience. But in playing newer games like Metro 2033 that struggle to run on ONE monitor not even close to being maxed out makes me not even WANT to touch multi-monitor with only a single card.
Maybe the wide-screen experience would compensate for that like you said, does for you and a lot of other folks. I don't want to to make the compromise if don't have to but maybe the wide-screen experience more than makes up for that. As I said hope to know shortly.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
Its easy and understandable that people think going 3X screens is giving up eyecandy on single screen.
Its not a compromise, since you in cases where FPS is low, would either choose between 2 ways of eyecandy. You can either have AA enabled or view 3X the amount of game content. Many choose to see more of the game then have AA.
And, you still have the option to run single screen whenever you wish!
The implementation of three-monitor gaming is the only real innovation in years and ATI deserves credit for making it happen successfully. ATI did have to compromise with the Display port requirement, but Nvidia (where are those drivers, anyway...) had to compromise by not making it run on a single card.
Frankly I wish there were some monitor manufacturers who would do a three-monitor package with decreased bezel sizes or integrated screen. But that would require a much larger market. Yes, the 3-monitor gaming market has expanded - but from 0.001% to maybe 0.5%.
Frankly I wish there were some monitor manufacturers who would do a three-monitor package with decreased bezel sizes or integrated screen. But that would require a much larger market. Yes, the 3-monitor gaming market has expanded - but from 0.001% to maybe 0.5%.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
With oled and pled tech, its possible to make such packages with seamless transition, and superb responstime and contrast. I hope that the vendors consider this.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Its easy and understandable that people think going 3X screens is giving up eyecandy on single screen.
Its not a compromise, since you in cases where FPS is low, would either choose between 2 ways of eyecandy. You can either have AA enabled or view 3X the amount of game content. Many choose to see more of the game then have AA.
And, you still have the option to run single screen whenever you wish!
I undestand the theory of falling back to a single screen which is cool. But there are PLENTY of other effects besides AA, that's the one that I'm least worred about.
The thing is I've not gamed on a single card system in almost 5 years because I think that a single card is BARELY enough for 1920x1200 in a number of cases. I'm not happy even with the single card performance of a GTX 480 on at 1920x1200 in Metro 2033 and Crysis, just ain't doing it for me so I really wouldn't expect that I'd be happy at three times the resolution.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
Thats the beauty of it. You can fall back to one screen any time you want, while in the cases where your 3X GTX480 is overkill (most games today), you can crank it up even more with Nvidia surround!
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Nvidia's solution is implemented in hardware, it's a special SLI mode that (until now) was only unlocked on Quadro cards. They're just allowing GeForce cards to access what they've had all along.
You can't do spanned resolutions on Windows Vista or Windows 7 in software, the driver model simply doesn't allow it. To get around this limitation, the hardware itself has to handle the spanning, so it can present the display driver with a single (very wide) display.
I suspect they're using the CUDA framebuffer copy function to accomplish most of the work; it's a hardware (NOT software) feature which allows one Nvidia card to directly copy its framebuffer to another Nvidia card over the PCIe bus.
Last edited:
MrLonghair
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,764
Eyefinity exists in the hardware, the cores themselves are essentially optimized for three screen usage. Nv Surround on a single 480 would make it look pretty bad compared to an Eyefinity 5870.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
While Eyefinity is active, the card is only aware of one very wide monitor. Besides that, there's no "optimizing for three screen usage" unless you count optimizing for the high throughput required by ALL high resolution displays.
A single 480? What are you talking about? You need two for NV surround...
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I stand corrected but it's being said all over the place that AMD's solution is better because it's hardware based and works with only a single card. Why the requirement for two cards? I guess that must be related to output ports as GT 200s and Fermis only have 2 independent ports on a card.
I agree with this statement I need extra fps to spare and still max outmy games when I see I can't do that I start to get annoyed.
I've become very picky and very sensitive to drops in fps and overall lowish fps. Years ago I could get by with say 30-40 fps in a game and if it FELT smooth I would still enjoy myself. Last few years ugh as soon as I sense the fps dipping lower than say 50(especially approaching 40 and lower) I know it and I start to obsess over it. Sucks actually but it is what it is. All that said yes I'm interested in triple screen gaming of course what real pc gamer isn't interested. However I have my doubts about how long would it be before I would find myself in that ineviatable situation where I will have to drop back to one screen in order to run max eye candy in a new game later this year or next. That would piss me off. Knowing my NEW native res is 5000+ x 1080 (whatever) and not being able to run it without dumbing down settings would suck. I also have an other issue which could only be overcome by going with 3 larger 1080P screen to try out tripple screen. IE: I love running ona 37" screen I don't think I could drop back down to a 24" or even 27" even though I would have alot more screen real estate in a much much smaller package. So I would need to get at least 3 32" or bigger screens. That becomes a very large expense and no longer cost effective like it is for most going to 3 24's or 3 27's at 200-300 a pop. I'm probably looking at more like 500-800 a pop x 3. Not gonna happen especially not for a whim. So you see my dillema. Kinda fucked on both counts. /sigh