Results: Battlefield 4
I play Battlefield 4 more than any other game, so I have a good idea how it performs at different settings. This title employs a powerful engine that scales well across a range of hardware, so I'm curious to see how it looks on budget-oriented graphics cards.
Surround on the GeForce GTX 750 Ti
As you will see in the charts below, this setup is playable at low details with v-sync disabled. Graphics quality is not impressive when so much eye candy is sacrificed, and you will see screen tearing. But that's the compromise you make for a full peripheral view of the battlefield.
I experimented with overclocking, changing the resolution to 4800x900 and upping the detail level to a Medium preset, which looks better and is still playable. Using MSI's Afterburner tool, I set GPU Boost to 1213MHz and the memory to 1470MHz, which increased the frame rate measurably.
Eyefinity on the Radeon R7 260X
I started testing Eyefinity using the same Medium preset at 4800x900, since that produced the best results with Nvidia's card (though I also enabled AMD's Mantle API). As it turned out, both cards provided performance in the same ballpark. This was the first time I've tried gaming with Mantle, and it seemed to give me a few frames on the average and high end, but no better minimum frame rate.
Any overclocking beyond the stock frequencies froze the PC using MSI’s Afterburner. Fortunately, the Catalyst Control Center's Overdrive tool worked perfectly. The card proved stable with a 1244MHz GPU clock rate and 1650MHz memory. Anything higher caused it to freeze. Our Battlefield benchmark results increased to 57FPS though. Not too shabby!
For my work computer I will never again go back to having less than 2 displays (though the 3rd tends to get significantly less use, it is handy to have at times). When working with lots of office apps and web browsers it is extremely nice to have everything up at once where you can see it. Even at home when doing work at home I tend to use my desktop display as a 2nd for my gutless laptop rather than using the workhorse gaming/editing rig (plus, the laptop can't game... so less distracting).
But for gaming, I absolutely prefer a single large high-quality monitor to having 3 'normal' sized ones. I mean, if I could afford 3 high-end displays (and the GPU horsepower to drive them) then I would absolutely go for that. But as a general rule of thumb, at a given budget I find that having a single display that is as large and as nice as possible is much more enjoyable than having 3 mediocre displays.
http://i.imgur.com/eAz4LMp.jpg is my build, and I'd never drop below 4 monitors again. Ultra wide is ok for gaming, but productivity, multiple screens are needed.
Just because YOU do not see the need for something doesn't make the people that do idiots.
I mean 3 radeon 260's and nvidia 750's TI is still pretty cheap compared to a high end card!!
I'm at work in my cubicle and I'm currently writing this on a basic HP Probook 6575b which uses the AMD A6-4400M APU (Radeon HD7520G video chipset) connected to HP's docking station. I have (2) Samsung B2230's side by side and an HP P221 hanging on the wall in a portrait orientation.
Using basic Windows configuration, I have the P221 monitor offset so bottom portion is about 2" above the bottom of the Samsungs, and extends about 10" above. Even though the physical screen of the P221 does not align with the Samsungs, when I drag windows across the monitors, they stay exactly lined up; they don't get that disconnected offset. (I realize it may be hard to visualize).
The point being is that Windows' native monitor resolution settings will allow you do the basics needed to configure your three monitor setup as well as set things like offset and orientation. I think what throws off most people is that they don't realize that in the screen resolution settings, you can drag your monitors around and reorder and align them as needed.
One other tip... rather than have your monitors bezels next to each other, find your normal seating position. Now take your outer monitor and move the bezel so it's directly behind the middle monitor's bezel. Effectively you should be able to achieve the visual perception of only a single bezel divide instead of a double-wide.