Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Triple Screen 3D

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 17, 2012 10:07:03 AM

Yo guyz this is bro's query...his pc is superior to mine but by a fair margin..he had this posted on a shitty site..so i decided to help him

lets get straight to the point

My Specs

LOCAL PSU 250W (I am gonna buy corsair soon)
Nvidia 9800GT 512MB (A decent card i must say)
4GB RAM (will upgrade later)
LG Cinema 3D Monitor (Got it few days back)
Gigabyte Mobo (Gonna get a SLI Mobo soon if i go for nvidia)

I have digged a lots month of research for my triple screen 3D gaming and i have came to some conclusions that MIGHT be wrong...correct me if i am

Nvidia 3D surround is simple to setup than HD3D eyefinity...but their GPU's aren't capable of doing multi monitor as good as their AMD counterparts
HD3D is not as good and supported in as many games as Nvidia 3D vision

If i go with Nvidia I was thinking....

MSI GTX 660 (NON-Ti) in TWO WAY SLI
This is a budget friendly option as i am getting each at 17K from flipkart...
but as much as i know it has 192 BIT memory bus interface as opposed to HD7950's 384 BIT memory bus interface...& i've read its not good for future titles
& A single GTX 660 can barely run games in triple screen...so the SLI comes here in play

If i go with AMD i was thinking.....

Sapphire HD 7950 Flex edition
for those who dont know about flex technology ..its from sapphire which eliminates the use of special adapters required for eyefinity!
This i am willing to do Xfire in future if it doesnt give me required performance
the main reason i am leaning towards 7950 is its ability to overclock & perform as good as 7970 & i can get satisfactory FPS on a SINGLE card
I've read an article in which a guy had did HD3D+Eyefinity on single 7970 & get 50-60 FPS average with shadows,AA OFF
Physx is least of my concerns

I dont want ULTRA high settings and all....High is enough for me in Triple screen 3D
The main problem between my choices is this

If i go for nvidia now... i would have to buy a new MOBO worth 10K because of SLI
so my cost would be 17K+17K+10K = 44K

& If i go for AMD my cost would be JUST 24K...(cost is without mobo only HD7950)
if i do xfire in future...i will take a lot of time to gather such amount 24K+24K+10K=58K

So should i opt for AMD or plain simple nvidia ?


PS: right now experiencing 3D movies with tridef 3D that came with my monitor
Wish to do a 5 monitor 3D setup in a future
Currency mentioned is in indian INR

More about : triple screen

November 17, 2012 11:41:26 AM

If you want to play in triple moniter in 3d, then you are probably gonna need sli or crossfire setups. A single gpu isn't gonna cut it.
Score
0
November 17, 2012 11:55:57 AM

There's plenty of multi-monitor reviews out there that will provide all the info you need - have a look at a few sites; you'll get far more info than we could give. I'm sure Tom's did something on this as well.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 12:07:16 PM

Id say that u need SLI to use 3D surround from Nvidia.

While eyefinity gives u the option to use more than 3 monitors with 1 card.

So if u are a hardcore game'r (hunting high res and quality) , u will need more than 1 card.

Imo u should get a 660 Ti and than sli it.

If u can strech ur budget to a single 680 and stay with that.U can always add 1 more later.

Keep in mind that SLI or CF will give u more noise and heat.

2)Powerful card like 7950/70 and game with that ?

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_7970_Matrix/...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/toxic-hd-7970-eyefi...

.It will give u 30 fps+ on ultra on BF3 with 3 monitor's.
Score
0
November 17, 2012 2:59:03 PM

prototype18 said:
Id say that u need SLI to use 3D surround from Nvidia.

While eyefinity gives u the option to use more than 3 monitors with 1 card.

So if u are a hardcore game'r (hunting high res and quality) , u will need more than 1 card.

Imo u should get a 660 Ti and than sli it.

If u can strech ur budget to a single 680 and stay with that.U can always add 1 more later.

Keep in mind that SLI or CF will give u more noise and heat.

2)Powerful card like 7950/70 and game with that ?

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_7970_Matrix/...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/toxic-hd-7970-eyefi...

.It will give u 30 fps+ on ultra on BF3 with 3 monitor's.


I already mentioned that i am willing to sacrifice some resolution & texture settings ...Plus i can sacrifice 100% AA

Seriously cant afford 680 Coz its like $650 in India

660ti is priced at $460...Goddamit these indian taxes
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 3:09:10 PM

You are gonna need more power for triple screen 3D. With 3D it will produce half the frame rate of 2D. You really need the power of at least two 680s, but triple 660tis will do too, if you can power and cool them.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 17, 2012 3:09:27 PM

I agree with the notion of SLI for 3D Vision Surround, but even then, you'll have to lower settings to manage.

DO NOT GO CHEAP for 3D Vision surround. DO NOT GET THE 660ti or lower. I cannot stress this enough. The 660ti's and lower has the weakness of low memory bandwidth, the higher the resolution, and the higher the AA levels, the more and more that problem is exposed, and adding 3D Vision on top of that, and you are just asking for trouble.

Go for at least 670's in SLI. 3D Vision on a single 1080p monitor gives similar performance as you'd get on 3 1080p monitors without 3D. You are compounding that by doing both.

The good news is that 3D Vision looks good, even with lower settings, which, unless you go with 3 or 4 680's, you will have to do.
Score
0
November 17, 2012 3:11:08 PM

To be honest i think you will need something much beefier that 660 sli for 3 monitor 3d gaming.. What resolution are your monitors? As others have said, it would be worth looking into specific articles/reviews
Score
0
November 17, 2012 3:12:24 PM

Additional Details :- I am going to use portrait mode
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 17, 2012 3:14:08 PM

I just saw something after rereading your post that may change things a bit. Are you planning on using 3 Cinema displays? Those are passive, and require a lot less power to use 3D, but I'm also not sure if they are even supported for 3D Vision surround, as it is not a 3D Vision monitor.

I'd recommend you try it on 1 monitor before you go crazy and try 3.
Score
0
November 17, 2012 3:17:59 PM

bystander said:
I just saw something after rereading your post that may change things a bit. Are you planning on using 3 Cinema displays? Those are passive, and require a lot less power to use 3D, but I'm also not sure if they are even supported for 3D Vision surround, as it is not a 3D Vision monitor.

I'd recommend you try it on 1 monitor before you go crazy and try 3.


Yup i am going for those 3 passive monitors...i have one right now which is 1080p...but as i said i am ready to compromise with resolutions.....BTW can you please elaborate about passive 3D requiring less resources
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 3:18:11 PM

http://www.flipkart.com./gigabyte-nvidia-geforce-gtx-66...

I would say go with this.Cuz u dont have enough budget for 670/80

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7950_CrossFir...

Check those reviews above.
Score
0
November 17, 2012 3:22:25 PM

prototype18 said:
http://www.flipkart.com./gigabyte-nvidia-geforce-gtx-66...

I would say go with this.Cuz u dont have enough budget for 670/80

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7950_CrossFir...

Check those reviews above.


Can you tell me the difference between your mentioned card and http://www.flipkart.com./gigabyte-nvidia-geforce-gtx-66... this card
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 3:25:25 PM

Yours is a 660 mine is a 660 TI
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 17, 2012 3:25:25 PM

_deadshot said:
Yup i am going for those 3 passive monitors...i have one right now which is 1080p...but as i said i am ready to compromise with resolutions.....BTW can you please elaborate about passive 3D requiring less resources


Active systems, which 3D Vision uses, create 2 full 1080p images for each eye. The active shutter glasses black out one lens at a time, so the proper image is seen by the correct eye. This requires twice as many images as normal to get the same affective FPS. For 60 FPS, 120 FPS are generated (every other goes to the right or left eyes).

Passive systems give each eye 1920x540 images. Every other horizontal line is viewable by only 1 eye, the other eye sees the other. That means that rendering takes less power.

There also appears to be issues with some Passive setups, that will not allow more than 720p to get 60hz per eye performance, which may help you keep performance up, but will further degrade image quality down to 1280x360 per eye. This is because up to HDMI 1.4a, HDMI cannot send 120hz worth of frames at 1080p. Oddly enough, many passive systems require the left and right frames to be sent separately, causing issues. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, and why there hasn't been work to fix them, but you see people coming here complaining about it and I'm not sure if all passive systems have this limitation.
Score
0
November 18, 2012 1:05:44 AM

bystander said:
Active systems, which 3D Vision uses, create 2 full 1080p images for each eye. The active shutter glasses black out one lens at a time, so the proper image is seen by the correct eye. This requires twice as many images as normal to get the same affective FPS. For 60 FPS, 120 FPS are generated (every other goes to the right or left eyes).

Passive systems give each eye 1920x540 images. Every other horizontal line is viewable by only 1 eye, the other eye sees the other. That means that rendering takes less power.

There also appears to be issues with some Passive setups, that will not allow more than 720p to get 60hz per eye performance, which may help you keep performance up, but will further degrade image quality down to 1280x360 per eye. This is because up to HDMI 1.4a, HDMI cannot send 120hz worth of frames at 1080p. Oddly enough, many passive systems require the left and right frames to be sent separately, causing issues. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, and why there hasn't been work to fix them, but you see people coming here complaining about it and I'm not sure if all passive systems have this limitation.


Thats extremely valuable info you shared here :)  can you tell how much performance increase i should expect over active 3D
is there any solution for the problem you mentioned about passive...i'll also try to find it myself...Even if i go for nvidia i will be using tridef 3D NOT 3D vision
Score
0

Best solution

a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 18, 2012 3:25:14 AM

I personally do not have a passive system, so I cannot really give more details about them than I have, but you might expect the Passive system to get close to twice the performance of an active system, with the same GPU setup, but the resolution cut in half, and causes text to look terrible from what I hear (not that gaming requires you to view a lot of text).
Share
November 18, 2012 5:35:32 AM

Thank you so much ...I am going to go with GTX 660 Sli...
Score
0
!