Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

dual monitors with one gpu

Tags:
  • GPUs
  • Dual Monitors
  • Monitors
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Displays
March 10, 2014 6:52:26 AM

hello =]
my pc:
CPU: i7 3820
GPU: GTX 660 OC 2GB
RAM: 4x4 2133mhz corsair vengence
monitor: FLATRON E2342 [23']

i want to get another monitor for this setup, and i want to know if i have to buy another GPU for it, or can i run two monitors with out a problem.. [i truly want to play BF4 with dual monitors, so i have to know if i can run 2 monitors in bf4 on FHD + HIGH settings]

for now, i run bf4 on HIGH settings, with 65 ~ 80 fps..

hope u can help me =] thx

More about : dual monitors gpu

a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 6:54:49 AM

You'd be putting stress on your GPU and I don't think you'd be able to keep 60 fps at all times. Not at 1080p anyway.
m
0
l
March 10, 2014 6:56:20 AM

and if i buy a better GPU, lets say, GTX 770 4gb edition.

would i be able to run both screen on FHD on high, with steedy 60~70 fps ?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 6:57:41 AM

yuval153 said:
and if i buy a better GPU, lets say, GTX 770 4gb edition.

would i be able to run both screen on FHD on high, with steedy 60~70 fps ?


Yes you would. A 770 can run one monitor over 100fps on high easily, so two wouldnt be much more of a problem.
m
0
l
March 10, 2014 6:58:24 AM

ok..

and if in the future i will want to TRIPLE screen my setup, i will need another 770 right?
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:03:57 AM

While this runs great on a single monitor, a dual-monitor setup for gaming is bad. You will have the crosshairs split between the bezels since they are at the center of screen.

This is why multi-monitor gaming setups use three monitors.

Also, you'll need more GPU power unless you want to set everything to low/medium for more than one monitor.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:06:35 AM

yuval153 said:
ok..

and if in the future i will want to TRIPLE screen my setup, i will need another 770 right?


If you are planning on doing a triple setup, I'd use an AMD card. AMD has card with more memory and bigger 384 bit memory buses. The r9 290 has 4GB of memory and uses a massive 512 bit system. Otherwise, using nvidia it would be better to SLI a card which uses more power.
Share
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:35:23 AM

ubercake said:
Nvidia cards also use a 384-bit memory bus:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt...


On their newest ones yes, but he was talking about a 770 which still uses a 256 bus. I hope nvidia releases the volta series with a 512 bus like AMD.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:37:51 AM

Even though AMD uses a bus with more bandwidth (and always an abundance of VRAM), the Nvidia cards outperform them. Better processing yields better performance.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:43:42 AM

ubercake said:
Even though AMD uses a bus with more bandwidth (and always an abundance of VRAM), the Nvidia cards outperform them. Better processing yields better performance.


Maybe, but I'll always prefer AMD for high resolutions and multi monitor setups. Nvidia has processing power, true, but they can have all the power in the world, doesn't mean much if they don't have the memory power to back it up. If you picked two identical cards from both companies, lets say the gtx 770 and r9 280x (just as an estimate) the 770 has 2gb 256 bus and the 280x has 3gb 384 bus. For a single monitor 1920x1080, I'd choose the 770. For a multi monitor solution, or a resolution higher than 1920x1080 (2556x1440) I'd choose the 280x.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:51:11 AM

But if you want to add another card in the future SLI is a far better option than crossfire. Especially from a driver standpoint.

Additionally, the Radeon 290 and 290x are the only cards out right now by AMD that have the dropped/runt frame issues with crossfire tackled at a hardware level. I wouldn't touch any AMD cards other than these for gaming.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:52:31 AM

ubercake said:
But if you want to add another card in the future SLI is a far better option than crossfire. Especially from a driver standpoint.

Additionally, the Radeon 290 and 290x are the only cards out right now by AMD that have the dropped/runt frame issues with crossfire tackled at a hardware level. I wouldn't touch any AMD cards other than these for gaming.


That's true, SLI beats out the Xfire drivers. Personally, i prefer single cards. Less driver issues altogether.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 7:57:17 AM

I can guarantee you if you get another one of those 780s and run SLI with it, SLI won't give you problems.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 8:13:03 AM

ubercake said:
I can guarantee you if you get another one of those 780s and run SLI with it, SLI won't give you problems.


I don't think it would give me a problem. But considering that I get 120 fps on ultra for most games on a single monitor, another 780 is so far overkill.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 8:19:55 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
ubercake said:
I can guarantee you if you get another one of those 780s and run SLI with it, SLI won't give you problems.


I don't think it would give me a problem. But considering that I get 120 fps on ultra for most games on a single monitor, another 780 is so far overkill.


Sort of like a 1000W power supply? ;) 
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 8:47:35 AM

ubercake said:
pyr0_m4n said:
ubercake said:
I can guarantee you if you get another one of those 780s and run SLI with it, SLI won't give you problems.


I don't think it would give me a problem. But considering that I get 120 fps on ultra for most games on a single monitor, another 780 is so far overkill.


Sort of like a 1000W power supply? ;) 


:kaola:  It was actually the same price as the 750W I was going to get, but this one is modular and multi rail. But you are right, it is more than I use.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 8:50:27 AM

I also have too much power. I do always consider getting a third GPU, but almost always stick to two. And so I'm overpowered.

Nice to know you have options though.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 8:55:21 AM

ubercake said:
I also have too much power. I do always consider getting a third GPU, but almost always stick to two. And so I'm overpowered.

Nice to know you have options though.


You've got two 780's. If I remember correctly, the 780 uses 200W power each under load. You also have a lot of devices. I have the benefit of using only one SSD 180GB as my main drive. Saves on power and everything is super fast. I'm kind of surprised you don't just use a single 1TB HDD for your build. Especially the newer ones that have good stability.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 9:22:35 AM

I keep my data separate from my apps. Data has it's own drive. To me, this makes things much easier to update / clone / migrate.

Also, I got a heck of a deal on the 500GB drives when I first put the system together. They're both a little over half full and the data drive is filling up pretty quickly since ShadowPlay was implemented. I probably will need a 1TB just for my data pretty soon. I'm replacing the 80GB drive with a SanDisk Extreme II 240GB (should be here today) to put more apps on it. Currently, my 80GB holds BF3 and BF4 (if I remember correctly, they are using close to 60GBs for just the two games) and still is SATA II so I'll get a boost in speed with those games and still be able to put more games on the new drive. I'm going to reformat the 80GB and offload my system utilities from my 120GB to my 80GB after it's reformatted so I can keep the OS drive usage to a minimum.

I'm a huge fan of separation of disk function. I tend to over do it at times. With mechanical drives, there were good reasons from a performance standpoint, but with the SSDs, it's negligible, but I have found it's much easier to upgrade to the new more expensive standard at a lower cost by keeping drive sizes smaller. Only my data files will be on mechanical drives until I trust SSDs 100%. Everything else can be restored from disk or download, but my data cannot. I have quite a few externals for backups as well.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 10:30:06 AM

ubercake said:
I keep my data separate from my apps. Data has it's own drive. To me, this makes things much easier to update / clone / migrate.

Also, I got a heck of a deal on the 500GB drives when I first put the system together. They're both a little over half full and the data drive is filling up pretty quickly since ShadowPlay was implemented. I probably will need a 1TB just for my data pretty soon. I'm replacing the 80GB drive with a SanDisk Extreme II 240GB (should be here today) to put more apps on it. Currently, my 80GB holds BF3 and BF4 (if I remember correctly, they are using close to 60GBs for just the two games) and still is SATA II so I'll get a boost in speed with those games and still be able to put more games on the new drive. I'm going to reformat the 80GB and offload my system utilities from my 120GB to my 80GB after it's reformatted so I can keep the OS drive usage to a minimum.

I'm a huge fan of separation of disk function. I tend to over do it at times. With mechanical drives, there were good reasons from a performance standpoint, but with the SSDs, it's negligible, but I have found it's much easier to upgrade to the new more expensive standard at a lower cost by keeping drive sizes smaller. Only my data files will be on mechanical drives until I trust SSDs 100%. Everything else can be restored from disk or download, but my data cannot. I have quite a few externals for backups as well.


Thankfully ive never had an issue with my ssd. At 180gb, I just cycle through the games I play and uninstall the ones I dont currently use. It works well for me.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 137 U Graphics card
March 10, 2014 10:55:49 AM

Yeah. 180 is a good size.
m
0
l