Display spanning is quickly becoming the high-mark for serious gaming machines of all budgets, with more powerful cards allowing higher resolutions. Yet, as panel resolutions higher than 1080p become harder to find, do we really need more than two cards?
AMD calls it Eyefinity. Nvidia calls it Surround. Whatever you call it, spanning a game across three displays sets the PC industry up as the champion of realism years after naysayers pointed to the lower cost of gaming consoles. You can keep your four-year-old platform. This is all about pushing the high-end; that's something consoles, by design, simply cannot do toward the end of their protracted lives.
It turns out that people really can see more than what’s in front of them, and those who are able to see things sneaking up from the side have a huge advantage over those who cannot.
Everyone who can afford a decent gaming PC can supposedly get in on this action, thanks to huge advances in GPU technology that have made mid-market cards a viable solution for ultra-wide resolutions. The biggest question is how much quality you’ll need to sacrifice to get a smooth frame rate.
Nvidia has its own requirements to satisfy, since two cards are required to connect three screens, but two midrange cards like the GeForce GTX 460 can certainly stand up to any high-end model.
Seeking the highest graphics detail levels in our games, we started out with a pair of GeForce GTX 480s for today’s test. GeForce GTX 460 cards were added to address mid-budget concerns, and we even added a second pair of GeForce GTX 480s to address those seeking the highest possible resolutions. With so many configurations at our disposal, we’re ready to answer the question “How much GPU do you really need to game across multiple displays?”
- A Broader Perspective
- The Test Platform
- Additional Hardware And Benchmark Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark
- Benchmark Results: Alien Vs. Predator (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (DX9)
- Benchmark Results: Crysis (DX10)
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2 (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
- Performance Analysis
- Energy And Efficiency
- Conclusion

They look like sparkle cards to me.
EDIT: Now fixed, I thought it was funny that sapphire made gtx460s
It's so hot, it can also make steak BBQ for you! Watch out for anti-terrorist bust over the Fermi thermal suspicion though...
Isnt it nice to know that sappire tech now makes NVIDIA cards because the last time i know they are an ATI exclusive. Good job toms
I am currently running 3 GTX 260's in triple sli on three monitors in surround mode on Windows 7 Professional 64 bit. It works great!
Considering the next gen (The enthusiast cards like Cayman, not the Bart XT cards) will support Eyefinity5 and 3DHD (unsure of the names).
I'm more interested in the multi-monitor gaming aspect, but it would be nice to see an apples to apples comparison of the platforms. To see where Nvidia's implementation stands against the more mature eyefinity platform and Nvidia's more mature 3D platform against AMD's new platform.
The short answer is cost. Three small displays offer more "real estate" for less cost vs. a single 30" monitor capable of 2560x1600.
I think the great merit of Eyefinity/Surround is the fact that your Field of vision becomes huge. Vistas are rolling by in simulators and in multiplayer FPSs you can see the little bugger hiding in the bush in the corner of your eye.
"Mid-budget"
I think anyone who can afford three monitors is going to be rich enough to buy four GTX480's. There is no "Mid-budget" for three monitors, just "costs too much you rich jerks".