Triple Head Asus Display?

[viiag]

I've been doing my research and for the price point I keep coming back to the Asus VE276Q ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236091 ).
Does anyone have any experience with this display? Are there better displays around the same price point($200 -> $250)? I'm looking to use it for a triple headed gaming rig / software development box.

Currently I have *nothing* powering the graphics in the box and am waffling between 7970xFire, 680SLI, or a 690. I'm leaning the Nvidia route, (assuming I can find one) but with a good enough reason I'll switch to the AMD cards.

 

[AdioKIP]

I have 3 of the smaller versions (VE248Q) and love them. Havent had any issues, they look great, and ASUS offers a good warranty if you did have any issues.

 

[bryonhowley]

I have three of the Asus VK278Q Black 27 witch from what I can tell from the specs is the same thing just with WebCams. I got them when they were on a good sale other wise I would have got the 2 of the ones you were looking at as I did not really need 3 monitors with Webcams. I have had no problems with my monitors at all they have performed very well. I would highly recommend them.

 

[viiag]

What sort of graphics cards do you folks use to drive those monitors?

 

[rdzona]

I would strongly recommend thinking twice about that 27in screen at 1080 res. At 27in, the screen really deserves 1440 imo. If you get a chance to look at both screens you'll see why I say this. Plus, an eyefinity setup with 3 27's might be kind of awkward. Are you going to landscape them all. That would almost be way to wide and really skinny. If you portrait them, then you're only combining the 1080 side and I think it would be really ineffective.

Since AMD's 7000 series cards support eyefinity 2.0, they have a leg up on nV. NV might support some of the same things, not sure. But eyefinity 2.0 supports multiple res setups. IMO that means you can get more effecient setups. Like have a nice 24 or 27in center screen and flank that with smaller 20in or something like that. Or the coveted 20-30-20 is still the dream in multi-monitor land. Although for that to happen they need to add PLP support which cannot be far off I would think.

 

[viiag]

I would strongly recommend thinking twice about that 27in screen at 1080 res. At 27in, the screen really deserves 1440 imo. If you get a chance to look at both screens you'll see why I say this. Plus, an eyefinity setup with 3 27's might be kind of awkward. Are you going to landscape them all. That would almost be way to wide and really skinny. If you portrait them, then you're only combining the 1080 side and I think it would be really ineffective.

Since AMD's 7000 series cards support eyefinity 2.0, they have a leg up on nV. NV might support some of the same things, not sure. But eyefinity 2.0 supports multiple res setups. IMO that means you can get more effecient setups. Like have a nice 24 or 27in center screen and flank that with smaller 20in or something like that. Or the coveted 20-30-20 is still the dream in multi-monitor land. Although for that to happen they need to add PLP support which cannot be far off I would think.

What's so awesome about 20-30-20? I spend most of my day working on dual 24" and that's still not enough screen real estate, I'd find 20" almost too small for anything other then a screen wasted on just E-mail. (Not trying to be argumentative, trying to understand)

I was thinking about the hazard of being that wide. I was toying with the idea of 6x24, but that seems to fall straight into the realm of ridiculousness unless I was willing to drop hardcore money for hardcore monitors. Nearly off the shelf 24" screens strike me as being wasted on a setup like that. (Not to mention the fact that even with eyefinity that can't be truly pleasant to game on, can it?) I looked at going 1440 for the 27s and I'm simply not willing to pay $600 per monitor.

Has anyone experienced Eyefinity setups that big? either 2x3 or 6x1?

 

[warezme]

The physical size is not as important as the resolution. For gaming any of the options you have chosen will work with no issues. I would have to recommend Nvidia simply because I have experience with it and Vision Surround on three monitors at 5760x1080 runs very well even in 3D if you so desire. I am running 3 23" 120Hz alienware at that resolution on a single 590 and it runs perfectly at highest resolutions which means any modern high end Nvidia card will have no issues for you

 

[rdzona]

What is not awesome with this?

http://ideasmanv2.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/dell-3007wfp-04.jpg

I think its the best of both worlds. Wide enough and lots of height. You get 4960x1600. <-- Almost 8M pixels

3 1080 monitors equals 5760x1080 (just north of 6M pixels). Yeah its wider(not by much), but that part is getting "wasted". 20-30-20 is just so much more of a useful setup. Don't get me wrong, it def has its drawbacks. For 1 its pricey, obvioulsy we're talking about a 30in monitor. And second, I don't think PLP is supported in gaming "yet."

Have you heard about the korean 27in ips that have been making lots of noise on ebay.
27in IPS at 1440 res
glossy
~low $300's
Basically same panel as the apple cinema display
And some people claim they have been getting 90-100hz out of them using NV cards.

Here's some pretty large threads discussing them.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1215866/reviewed-400-2560x1440-ips-no-ag-90hz-achieva-shimian-qh270-and-catleap-q270

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1675393

 

[viiag]

What is not awesome with this?

http://ideasmanv2.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/dell-3007wfp-04.jpg

I think its the best of both worlds. Wide enough and lots of height. You get 4960x1600. <-- Almost 8M pixels

3 1080 monitors equals 5760x1080 (just north of 6M pixels). Yeah its wider(not by much), but that part is getting "wasted". 20-30-20 is just so much more of a useful setup. Don't get me wrong, it def has its drawbacks. For 1 its pricey, obvioulsy we're talking about a 30in monitor. And second, I don't think PLP is supported in gaming "yet."

Have you heard about the korean 27in ips that have been making lots of noise on ebay.
27in IPS at 1440 res
glossy
~low $300's
Basically same panel as the apple cinema display
And some people claim they have been getting 90-100hz out of them using NV cards.

Here's some pretty large threads discussing them.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1215866/reviewed-400-2560x1440-ips-no-ag-90hz-achieva-shimian-qh270-and-catleap-q270

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1675393

Looking at the 20-30-20 I understand what you mean now. I thought you meant to put them all in landscape view. That does look pretty slick. I could easily see a use for that professionally.

As much as I'd love 3 27" IPS displays at $300 a pop, I simply don't have the balls to take that much risk. I'd much rather dump that much money on a known vendor with better support/returns and sacrifice some quality.

The IPS issue is the only thing that keeps coming back to haunt me, weighing whether or not for gaming it's worth dropping the extra coin for IPS displays. I love the expanded viewing angle, but I don't really need the color reproduction.

 

[rdzona]

Sorry for the confusion, yeah PLP is Portrait-Landscape-Portrait. (the way eyefinity should be imo)

I know what you mean by the risk too, especially if you plan on getting 3 of them. Although, I obviously haven't read every post on those threads but I did read a good deal and it definitely seems people are getting panels with the same success (bad/bright pixel issues) as you would from say newegg. Afterall I think the actual panel maker is the same in most cases like LG for example. The biggest risk in my opinion is if you are very sensitive to say even 1 or two bad pixels it is a real pain and like 100 bucks to ship back to get a replacement. So really its the return shipping that hurts this. But honestly at $300, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Anyway, where you stand I think you will be happy with some fast TN's. If it were me I just can't get over how wide and skinny that set up will be. It's probably just me though, because I've never used 16:9, always 16:10 and never anything less than 1920x1200.