Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will this system work well for a 3 monitor gaming system?

Last response: in Systems
Share
October 3, 2012 8:59:52 PM

I'm building a 3 monitor gaming system and wanted to know if this setup is going to be good enough. I'm not sure how the cpu affects a 3 monitor setup so please let me know if I should maybe go up to i7? Would I benefit in this situation for the larger L3 cache (6MB vs 8MB)? Notice that I'm not overclocking as of yet but trying to leave myself the option to do so down the road if needed. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Intel® Core™ i5-3570K Processor (4x 3.40GHz/6MB L3 Cache)
Asetek 550LC Liquid CPU Cooling System
8 GB DDR3-1600 Corsair Vengeance
AMD Radeon HD 7950 - 3GB - HIS IceQ
ASRock Z77 Extreme4
750 Watt Corsair CMPSU-750TXV2
256GB ADATA SP900 SSD

$1335 (after tax and free shiping) from iBuyPower
October 3, 2012 9:22:12 PM

I don't think that you'll have an improvement in most games (nor an improvement worth paying more than a good LGA 1155 i5 for in any current games) going from an LGA 1155 i5 to an i7. There is no game available today that I recommend getting an i7 to play because there's no game today that an i5 can't handle excellently in realistic settings. Few games benefit from going beyond an i5 anyway because going past four cores tends to not help most games too much (although there are a few noteworthy examples).

Your graphics card should support three displays, but you might want something more powerful if you're doing three 1080p displays. Overclocking it to aroune 1150-1200MHz GPU clock and 1500MHz to 1700MHz memory clock might make it very good, but I don't know you and don't know what you'd be happier with, an overclocked 7950 or something more like a Radeon 7870 Crossfire setup that has superior performance, but other trade-offs.

Just keep in mind that you could easily save a lot of money by making your own computer. However, if you want a prebuilt, then that seems like a decent buy.
October 3, 2012 9:22:24 PM

Overclocking would help at 3x1920x1080 but getting an i7 wouldn't since hyper threading is the only difference and it's fairly useless in games (it's made for productivity programs like adobe's suite). L3 cache does zippo for games.

That said, with a 7950, your system will be mostly limited by the GPU so overclicking won't make too much of a difference in most games. The 7950 is a great card but three full res screens are very demanding (expect to play most games on medium-ish).

What games do you play?

edit: and I agree with luciferano's idea of building your own. Cheaper, more control and way more fun.
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 9:23:45 PM

mazen94122 said:
I'm building a 3 monitor gaming system and wanted to know if this setup is going to be good enough. I'm not sure how the cpu affects a 3 monitor setup so please let me know if I should maybe go up to i7? Would I benefit in this situation for the larger L3 cache (6MB vs 8MB)? Notice that I'm not overclocking as of yet but trying to leave myself the option to do so down the road if needed. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Intel® Core™ i5-3570K Processor (4x 3.40GHz/6MB L3 Cache)
Asetek 550LC Liquid CPU Cooling System
8 GB DDR3-1600 Corsair Vengeance
AMD Radeon HD 7950 - 3GB - HIS IceQ
ASRock Z77 Extreme4
750 Watt Corsair CMPSU-750TXV2
256GB ADATA SP900 SSD

$1335 (after tax and free shiping) from iBuyPower


To run games at a decent pace with a triple monitor set-up (assuming you're using 1080p monitors) you're gonna need a better GPU. and at that resolution, Vram might become an issue if you get 2 GB cards... (on very few games)

Best solution is probably either crossfire that 7950 or get a 7970/ghz edition.

and you should really try to build your own PC. it'll save you a hundred bucks to spend on the GPU...
October 3, 2012 9:26:02 PM

killerhurtalot said:
To run games at a decent pace with a triple monitor set-up (assuming you're using 1080p monitors) you're gonna need a better GPU.


What better GPU is there than Tahiti? I don't know of any that are better for gaming at 5760x1080. OP could go for more GPUs, but they don't get any better per GPU than Tahiti for this usage. The 7970's full Tahiti is really hardly any different than the 7950's slightly crippled Tahiti and only seems to be because of the large clock frequency difference.
October 3, 2012 9:27:50 PM

luciferano said:
I don't think that you'll have an improvement in most games (nor an improvement worth paying more than a good LGA 1155 i5 for in any current games) going from an LGA 1155 i5 to an i7. There is no game available today that I recommend getting an i7 to play because there's no game today that an i5 can't handle excellently in realistic settings. Few games benefit from going beyond an i5 anyway because going past four cores tends to not help most games too much (although there are a few noteworthy examples).

Your graphics card should support three displays, but you might want something more powerful if you're doing three 1080p displays. Overclocking it to aroune 1150-1200MHz GPU clock and 1500MHz to 1700MHz memory clock might make it very good, but I don't know you and don't know what you'd be happier with, an overclocked 7950 or something more like a Radeon 7870 Crossfire setup that has superior performance, but other trade-offs.

Just keep in mind that you could easily save a lot of money by making your own computer. However, if you want a prebuilt, then that seems like a decent buy.


Thanks for clearing that up! What GPU setup would you suggest then? I plan on utilizing 3 1080p monitors for planet side 2, lots of racing games and maybe flight sims.
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 9:31:50 PM

luciferano said:
What better GPU is there than Tahiti? I don't know of any that are better for gaming at 5760x1080. OP could go for more GPUs, but they don't get any better per GPU than Tahiti for this usage. The 7970's full Tahiti is really hardly any different than the 7950's slightly crippled Tahiti and only seems to be because of the large clock frequency difference.


regardless, even a overclocked 7950 can barely run games at a decent clip with triple monitor set-ups...
I guarantee you that he will barely hit 30 fps or get mid 20s range with a overclocked 7950 on the newer games.

He'll need at least need to CFX that 7950 or get a 7970 and OC...

Well, he said planetside 2 + racing/flight sims.

Planetside 2 would probably be sufficient with a 7950 OCed on triple monitor... it's more cpu dependent imo when there's too many players on screen... (and in the closed beta, there's a serious draw distance issue. even with a GTX 670, it seems like i can't see enemies humans past 300-400m, vehicles i can see fine though. I assume these are server glitches though.

but racing games he's gonna be in the low 30s fps easy...

flight sims aren't that demanding...
October 3, 2012 9:36:23 PM

killerhurtalot said:
regardless, even a overclocked 7950 can barely run games at a decent clip with triple monitor set-ups...
I guarantee you that he will barely hit 30 fps or get mid 20s range with a overclocked 7950 on the newer games.

He'll need at least need to CFX that 7950 or get a 7970 and OC...


A good 7950 can overclock as far as a good 7970 with a similar cooler. The 7970's win is at stock, not when overclocked unless you stick with stock voltage for both cards or get a very premium 7970 that probably reaches into 7970 GHz pricing. The 7970 GHz Edition is a different story because its binning is superior to a point where the 7950 can't keep up.

mazen94122 said:
Thanks for clearing that up! What GPU setup would you suggest then? I plan on utilizing 3 1080p monitors for planet side 2, lots of racing games and maybe flight sims.


I'm not sure of exactly how intensive any of those are except for the flight sim that I'm sure is very light, but if they're anything like some modern FPS games, then two 7870s or two 7950s would probably be ideal for you. If they're more like as graphically intensive as Diablo 3, then a single 7870 or 7950 would probably be fine.
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 9:42:17 PM

luciferano said:
A good 7950 can overclock as far as a good 7970 with a similar cooler. The 7970's win is at stock, not when overclocked unless you stick with stock voltage for both cards or get a very premium 7970 that probably reaches into 7970 GHz pricing. The 7970 GHz Edition is a different story because its binning is superior to a point where the 7950 can't keep up.


you're saying that a overclocked 7950 will perform just as well as a overclocked 7970?
October 3, 2012 9:45:03 PM

killerhurtalot said:
you're saying that a overclocked 7950 will perform just as well as a overclocked 7970?


It depends on how much you overclock it and if you overvolt, but good 7950 models such as the XFX Black Edition, Gigabyte WindForce, and Sapphire's models as well as a few others generally overclock as well as 7970s with the same coolers while consuming a little less power. It takes premium 7970s such as the MSI Lightning or the Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon 7970 GHz Edition to get a good lead over the 7950 and even then, it is usually at the cost of value.
October 3, 2012 9:46:46 PM

should i be considering gtx cards instead? I really want high fps at 1080p on 3 monitors for good racing games.
October 3, 2012 9:48:16 PM

mazen94122 said:
should i be considering gtx cards instead? I really want high fps at 1080p on 3 monitors for good racing games.


Some of the racing games favor Nvidia, but AMD scales better at higher resolutions and only the GTX 670 and 680 scale well consistently in SLI, not the GTX 660 and 660 Ti that are priced similarly to the 7870 and 7950. There's nothing wrong with considering a Nvidia card, but I wouldn't for your usage unless you don't mind paying more money to get a 670 (cheapest 670 that I know of today, $350 right now, cheapest 7950 that I know of today, $270).
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 9:50:32 PM

mazen94122 said:
should i be considering gtx cards instead? I really want high fps at 1080p on 3 monitors for good racing games.


Sitck with AMD.

I would suggest either a 7970 GHZ edition OR Xfire 7950/70's. You're going to want 3-4GB of VRAM.
October 3, 2012 9:50:55 PM

Most racing games are capped at 30fps and are fairly easy to run. If you get a single card, make it amd. If you get sli, it doesn't matter.
October 3, 2012 9:51:51 PM

luciferano said:
Some of the racing games favor Nvidia, but AMD scales better at higher resolutions and only the GTX 670 and 680 scale well consistently in SLI, not the GTX 660 and 660 Ti that are priced similarly to the 7870 and 7950. There's nothing wrong with considering a Nvidia card, but I wouldn't for your usage unless you don't mind paying more money to get a 670 (cheapest 670 that I know of today, $350 right now, cheapest 7950 that I know of today, $270).


By scale well, do you mean bridging a second card?
October 3, 2012 9:54:32 PM

mastrom101 said:
Sitck with AMD.

I would suggest either a 7970 GHZ edition OR Xfire 7950/70's. You're going to want 3-4GB of VRAM.


3-4GB of vram for what?

BF3 uses the most vram and it still doesn't go over 2GB. And you run out of juice before you run out of vram unless you have something like 3x1600p with tri or quad sli. Anything 2GB+ is fine.
October 3, 2012 9:57:45 PM

mazen94122 said:
By scale well, do you mean bridging a second card?

when you cf or sli two cards, the performance gain is always less than a 100% increase in performance. How well the cards scale is how close the performance is to double that of a single card.
October 3, 2012 9:58:01 PM

mazen94122 said:
By scale well, do you mean bridging a second card?


I mean that a single AMD card scales better with increase resolution and MSAA and two cards also scale more consistently close to 100% for AMD than they do for Nvidia with the similarly priced GTX 660 and GTX 660 Ti. The only Nvidia card that can truly compete with the 7950 for this usage is the GTX 670 and that's significantly more expensive. If you want a Nvidia card, then the 670 is the best solution, but for you, an AMD solution would probably be superior. I recommend getting two 7870s for ultimiate value with excellent performance, two 7950s for ultimate performance, one 7950 for a mix of performance and low price, or a singel 7870 for the lowest price. There are better configurations, but these are msot ideal for you AFAIK.

7870<7950<<7870 CF< 7950 CF
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 10:00:23 PM

slicedtoad said:
3-4GB of vram for what?

BF3 uses the most vram and it still doesn't go over 2GB. And you run out of juice before you run out of vram unless you have something like 3x1600p with tri or quad sli. Anything 2GB+ is fine.


Metro 2033 and crysis 2 both use over 2GB of vram with a triple monitor set-up. with max settings and high AA. But that's it lol. no other games need over 2GB at that resolution,
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 10:04:22 PM

luciferano said:
I mean that a single AMD card scales better with increase resolution and MSAA and two cards also scale more consistently close to 100% for AMD than they do for Nvidia with the similarly priced GTX 660 and GTX 660 Ti. The only Nvidia card that can truly compete with the 7950 for this usage is the GTX 670 and that's significantly more expensive. If you want a Nvidia card, then the 670 is the best solution, but for you, an AMD solution would probably be superior. I recommend getting two 7870s for ultimiate value with excellent performance, two 7950s for ultimate performance, one 7950 for a mix of performance and low price, or a singel 7870 for the lowest price. There are better configurations, but these are msot ideal for you AFAIK.

7870<7950<<7870 CF< 7950 CF


you're pretty wrong about the SLI vs CFX... until the last patch, CFX has scaled terribly... even with the patch, both now average around 80-85%... ATI's CFX has traditionally always scaled worse than Nvidia's SLI.
October 3, 2012 10:30:08 PM

Alright, I bit the bullet and went ahead with my original posted configuration. Wish me luck! Thanks for all your guys' help!
October 3, 2012 10:34:38 PM

killerhurtalot said:
you're pretty wrong about the SLI vs CFX... until the last patch, CFX has scaled terribly... even with the patch, both now average around 80-85%... ATI's CFX has traditionally always scaled worse than Nvidia's SLI.


I recommend doing more research. Radeon 69xx Crossfire scaled so much better than Fermi SLI that two Radeon 6950s could compete with two GTX 570s and three 6950s generally beat three GTX 570s. SLI on the GTX 660 and the GTX 660 Ti is far more inconsistent than AMD's CFX scaling with current drivers (older drivers are irrelevant), presumably due to their memory bandwidth bottle-neck that gets worse as you increase the workload such as you would with high resolutions such as triple 1080p.

Generalizing like you're doing is extremely inaccurate.
October 3, 2012 10:41:26 PM

Dude if you are running 3 monitors I would personally go for a faster card, or try to run SLI.

I would consider spending your money on one very nice monitor and one very nice GPU rather than 3 monitors and having games look like a slide-show. If you want smoothness go for a highly regarded 120hz monitor, if you prefer sharpness and image quality over FPS then go with one of those IPS monitors you can get from Korea.
October 3, 2012 10:42:39 PM

It's amazing that this has devolved into a red vs green thread when all the OP wanted was a little help...lol
October 3, 2012 10:46:11 PM

mazen94122 said:
I'm building a 3 monitor gaming system and wanted to know if this setup is going to be good enough. I'm not sure how the cpu affects a 3 monitor setup so please let me know if I should maybe go up to i7? Would I benefit in this situation for the larger L3 cache (6MB vs 8MB)? Notice that I'm not overclocking as of yet but trying to leave myself the option to do so down the road if needed. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Intel® Core™ i5-3570K Processor (4x 3.40GHz/6MB L3 Cache)
Asetek 550LC Liquid CPU Cooling System
8 GB DDR3-1600 Corsair Vengeance
AMD Radeon HD 7950 - 3GB - HIS IceQ
ASRock Z77 Extreme4
750 Watt Corsair CMPSU-750TXV2
256GB ADATA SP900 SSD

$1335 (after tax and free shiping) from iBuyPower

Everything is fine with your build except the graphics card which you can add another 7950 for crossfire or get one 7970 vapor x oc edition. Any gpu should be over 2gb vram for multi monitor gaming. Your good tho, I game with two 560's in Sli with three monitors in 1080p.
October 3, 2012 10:51:41 PM

nstiver said:
It's amazing that this has devolved into a red vs green thread when all the OP wanted was a little help...lol


It's not a green fanboy versus red fanboy debate. AMD has an advantage multi-monitor setups, especially with multiple GPUs compared to the GTX 660 and 660 Ti. The 670 competes fairly well here, but it's too expensive. If it was a single GPU comparison, then AMD wouldn't necessarily win and Nvidia wouldn't necessarily lose. For example, the GTX 660 is an excellent competitor for the 7870 and the 670 is a good competitor for the 7950 if you go single monitor at no more than about 4MP.
a b C Monitor
October 3, 2012 11:58:48 PM

Reading some of these posts I seriously think some of you have 0 experience using eyefinity. If your idea of gaming involves playing everything on ultra settings than yeah a single 7950 won't be enough. I can still play tons of games on eyefinity just by dialing down some settings with a single 6950 playing on 3x1080p monitors.

Crysis2 dx9 no problem, avp, masseffect3, mw series, deus ex. Also some games will flat out not work in eyefinity (diabolo 3, starcraft, wow only in dx9 mode), mass effect older, skyrim has huge issues (menues unplayable).

Counter to what everyone else said I would get a single 7950 but buy a powersupply large enough to accomidate another one. You can always add another card if you find it isn't enough. But realistically a single card will still drive most games @30fps at 5760x1080 no problem after having reduced AA and shadows a bit.
October 4, 2012 12:07:52 AM

Supermuncher85 said:
Reading some of these posts I seriously think some of you have 0 experience using eyefinity. If your idea of gaming involves playing everything on ultra settings than yeah a single 7950 won't be enough. I can still play tons of games on eyefinity just by dialing down some settings with a single 6950 playing on 3x1080p monitors.

Crysis2 dx9 no problem, avp, masseffect3, mw series, deus ex. Also some games will flat out not work in eyefinity (diabolo 3, starcraft, wow only in dx9 mode), mass effect older, skyrim has huge issues (menues unplayable).

Counter to what everyone else said I would get a single 7950 but buy a powersupply large enough to accomidate another one. You can always add another card if you find it isn't enough. But realistically a single card will still drive most games @30fps at 5760x1080 no problem after having reduced AA and shadows a bit.


~30FPS is pretty bad for FPS gaming and most of those games that you listed are not very intensive, hence why you can run them in such a setup. Poor AA on 1080p displays also kinda sucks, but that's not nearly as bad as bad frame rates.

Also, most of the games that you list as being problematic are not so problematic for the Radeon 79xx cards with modern drivers with the latest CAPs and patches for those games. For example, I have no trouble with Skyrim in Eyefinity, although Skyrim does scale poorly in both SLI and in CFX.
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 12:22:21 AM

Mean I'm really not trying to bash but saying that you need 5gb of VRAM for eyefinity is just plain wrong. The experience of eyefinity is great ESPECIALLY for a flight sim like microsoft flight. Is it a *hardcore* GPU intensive game like METRO? No. But I'd argue that you will get less enjoyment from playing a title like Metro on eyefinity than something where you can enjoy the view like GW2, a flight sim or racing games (again none are very graphic intense).

Mean this is my opinion obviously. For me 30fps is perfectly adequate and if a game offers a cap at that level I will turn it on. For me 30fps is all I need assuming it never drops below 30, which it really shouldn't.

It's like the arguments about 60hz vs 120hz monitors. I honestly can't tell the difference. If someone can I say go for it! But honestly If I play an fps at 60 fps or 120fps makes zero difference to me.
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 12:26:39 AM

Anyway we are getting offtopic. I think the i5 is fine. I don't know the astek 550lc per se but I assume it's similar to an H60 or an H80 which should give you good overclocking headroom.

Curious what monitors are you planning on using?
October 4, 2012 1:58:43 AM

Supermuncher85 said:

Mean this is my opinion obviously. For me 30fps is perfectly adequate and if a game offers a cap at that level I will turn it on. For me 30fps is all I need assuming it never drops below 30, which it really shouldn't.

It's like the arguments about 60hz vs 120hz monitors. I honestly can't tell the difference. If someone can I say go for it! But honestly If I play an fps at 60 fps or 120fps makes zero difference to me.


We're quite off topic but I thought I'd respond to the 30/60/120hz comment. It depends mostly on the game as to whether you can tell the difference.

Racing games: there's a reason why they often have 30 fps caps, more doesn't make much difference (games like burnout are exceptions). The screen doesn't change that quickly in these games.

Strategy (SCII): For casual play, it's hard for the average person to see over 30fps but if you are moving the screen around fast enough (as you do in competitive play) it makes a big difference.

RPGs: arguable. Motion blur is often implemented which helps with lower fps. Also the genre is quite varied graphics wise.

FPSs (BF3, COD, CS, UT, other fast paced shooters): Unless you have poor vision, the jump from 30 to 60hz is noticeable. Doesn't mean you can't be happy with 30fps but there is a difference. If you disagree, sit down with them side by side, I've done this with everyone in my college CS class and only one person couldn't tell which was which (BF3). 120hz is also noticeable to most people and those that have used it for a while have trouble going back but it's purely a luxury (though some competitive fps gamers disagree).

Sorry to continue this tangent but the OP seems to have made the purchase already so I don't think he'll mind.
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 2:44:30 AM

After having spent the last hour of watching the presidential debate I prefer this tangent :D 
October 4, 2012 3:24:16 AM

I would just love to say, this was very interesting for me. I did learn so much, being a Green fanboy and all. Now with you guys I'm turning into a non-fanboy but all about the performance plus what you get for your money. I'm really debating if I should get a 7870 GHz editon or 7950. All I know is I'm waiting for black friday to see what is on sale =).
October 4, 2012 4:00:41 AM

Supermuncher85 said:
Anyway we are getting offtopic. I think the i5 is fine. I don't know the astek 550lc per se but I assume it's similar to an H60 or an H80 which should give you good overclocking headroom.

Curious what monitors are you planning on using?


Gonna get 3 of these: http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/03/aoc-borderless-i2757...

The most bezel-less monitor i could find. The first one just arrived in the mail! :D 
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 2:54:51 PM

Looks good! Shame it doesn't have a display port. So depeneding on the GPU you get shippedthe HIS 7950 Q comes with a DVI+HDMI+ mini DP ports remember to buy an active miniDisplay port adapter to dvi to get eyefinity running.

I'm using http://www.amazon.com/Accell-B087B-006B-DisplayPort-Sin... it's pretty cheap and it's AMD certified.
October 4, 2012 3:54:47 PM

luciferano said:
It's not a green fanboy versus red fanboy debate. AMD has an advantage multi-monitor setups, especially with multiple GPUs compared to the GTX 660 and 660 Ti. The 670 competes fairly well here, but it's too expensive. If it was a single GPU comparison, then AMD wouldn't necessarily win and Nvidia wouldn't necessarily lose. For example, the GTX 660 is an excellent competitor for the 7870 and the 670 is a good competitor for the 7950 if you go single monitor at no more than about 4MP.


I'm with you man. I'm just commenting on the overall tone.
October 4, 2012 5:25:42 PM

Supermuncher85 said:
Looks good! Shame it doesn't have a display port. So depeneding on the GPU you get shippedthe HIS 7950 Q comes with a DVI+HDMI+ mini DP ports remember to buy an active miniDisplay port adapter to dvi to get eyefinity running.

I'm using http://www.amazon.com/Accell-B087B-006B-DisplayPort-Sin... it's pretty cheap and it's AMD certified.


This monitor does not have a displayport or dvi input, but it does have an hdmi and a vga input. Will this be fine if get a display port -> hdmi converter (passive instead of active)? Should I just return this and find a monitor with displayport and dvi? I'm thinking yeah...
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 5:52:25 PM

Good point. I just checked if it had DP, never even crossed my mind it might not have DVI. I've never tried eyefinity using a dp ->hdmi passive adapter so I don't know if it works.

There are some active DP -> VGA adapters though. I can't test this though since I don't have these adapters since I'm using dvi.

Maybe someone else can share some info.
October 4, 2012 6:09:44 PM

Supermuncher85 said:
Good point. I just checked if it had DP, never even crossed my mind it might not have DVI. I've never tried eyefinity using a dp ->hdmi passive adapter so I don't know if it works.

There are some active DP -> VGA adapters though. I can't test this though since I don't have these adapters since I'm using dvi.

Maybe someone else can share some info.


After a bit of research, I'm just gonna return this and find a monitor with display port and not have to buy a $100 adapter for each monitor.
October 4, 2012 7:16:39 PM

mazen94122 said:
After a bit of research, I'm just gonna return this and find a monitor with display port and not have to buy a $100 adapter for each monitor.


$100?! I've bought some for about $20-25 each before! Where are you looking for such a price as $100?
October 4, 2012 7:18:58 PM

Supermuncher85 said:
Good point. I just checked if it had DP, never even crossed my mind it might not have DVI. I've never tried eyefinity using a dp ->hdmi passive adapter so I don't know if it works.

There are some active DP -> VGA adapters though. I can't test this though since I don't have these adapters since I'm using dvi.

Maybe someone else can share some info.


Passive adapter don't work AFAIK. You should need an active because DP and HDMI/DVI-D use different signaling. I'm not sure what the passives are even for, they're like DVI-D to VGA passive adapters, they do nothing that I'm aware of.
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 7:50:56 PM

mazen94122 said:
not have to buy a $100 adapter for each monitor.

Indeed they are only ~$30 +/- $5 and you'll only need one.
October 4, 2012 8:15:22 PM

Supermuncher85 said:
Indeed they are only ~$30 +/- $5 and you'll only need one.


so i just need one active and one passive? how does the passive connection get synced?
a b C Monitor
October 4, 2012 10:11:24 PM

You can use your
DVI port (either DVI -> HDMI adapter or straight out DVI to HDMI cable)
the HDMI port

and any other screen after those need to use one of the DP ports by either using a monitor that supports DP OR by using an active adapter, such as DP to dvi
October 4, 2012 11:04:55 PM

luciferano said:
$100?! I've bought some for about $20-25 each before! Where are you looking for such a price as $100?


I actually read that in another forum post, not from my own research.
October 4, 2012 11:06:55 PM

Supermuncher85 said:
You can use your
DVI port (either DVI -> HDMI adapter or straight out DVI to HDMI cable)
the HDMI port

and any other screen after those need to use one of the DP ports by either using a monitor that supports DP OR by using an active adapter, such as DP to dvi


So after some research I'm gonna go with this monitor (has dp and dvi :sol:  ) instead: http://www.asus.com/Display/LCD_Monitors/VK278Q/
October 5, 2012 12:56:57 AM

omg, after i made that last post they all sold out at bestbuy...
October 5, 2012 1:50:30 AM

Sorry to hear that. How expensive was it? Maybe some of us can make some recommendations.
October 5, 2012 4:09:50 AM

well my cap is $300
!