Widescreen Gaming Forum

I'd like to ask you guys which, in your opinion, is better for gaming?

I currently have the 3x 24 inch monitor setup, but I feel like a lot of my graphics "horsepower" is being wasted at the far edges of the left and right screens.

If I purchased a 30 inch screen at 2560x1600, thats 41% less pixels that must be rendered, but there is "more" being rendered where I can best see it.

I could always add a couple of portrait 1600x900 monitors on either side to get back to eyefinity if I wanted to continue down that path.

Aside from costs (an obvious concern), do the 7-8ms response time 30 inch monitors create bad ghosting problems for gaming? I'm pretty sure the monitors I currently use have 5 ms response times and I've never felt any ghosting, but I don't know about 7-8ms.

I have two 5870s in crossfire right now, and sometimes the crossfire/eyefinity performance is not great. Playing on just one big screen would eliminate the eyefinity driver issues.

I mostly plan to play BF3, but I also play other games like assassins creed series, racing games, flying games.

So what do you guys think?

Only you can answer the question, which will be more functional for you? Ultra-wide aspect ratio or high pixel count regular aspect ratio? You know your habits better than anyone else does.

_________________
Brad Hawthorne
Product Manager
Nthusim Pty. Ltd. | www.nthusim.com

30" you don't get more FOV than a single 24". So if you like pixel hunting in your games, by all means buy the 30". If you want to really see more in your games, buy 3x24"

One moniter only sees one box, the question is how big or how small is the box that you want.

Three moniters are different, the box in the middle is still the same box that you would see with the single moniter, the moniters on the sides are additional information that you are recieving.

Ah, so you guys are saying that (for example) in bfbc2 when the resolution is set to 2560x1600, that I still see the same amount of information/fov that I do currently on my 1920x1200?

I was under the impression that it more or less kept everything the same size (as on the 24 inch) but the added pixel resolution DID show more information/fov.

So 2560x1600 30" monitor without AA is sort of the same thing as outputting to a 30" 1080p lcd tv with 2x or 4x AA? In other words, the graphics quality/horsepower goes up, but no new information is displayed.

Thanks for the input so far guys.

Ah, so you guys are saying that (for example) in bfbc2 when the resolution is set to 2560x1600, that I still see the same amount of information/fov that I do currently on my 1920x1200?

I was under the impression that it more or less kept everything the same size (as on the 24 inch) but the added pixel resolution DID show more information/fov.

So 2560x1600 30" monitor without AA is sort of the same thing as outputting to a 30" 1080p lcd tv with 2x or 4x AA? In other words, the graphics quality/horsepower goes up, but no new information is displayed.

Thanks for the input so far guys.

The aspect ratio of the display determines the amount of viewable area, not the resolution. 5:4 AR sees the same area at 640x480 as 1600x1200, just as 16:9 AR 1440x900 sees the same area as 1920x1200. There is more detail in 2560x1600 than in 1920x1200 but it's the same area, just more pixels rendered. Field of view is why you triple screen. What is 60 degrees FOV on one screen can be 180 degrees FOV spanning three.

_________________
Brad Hawthorne
Product Manager
Nthusim Pty. Ltd. | www.nthusim.com

You cant add portrait monitors to balance it out. It has to be matching. Having side monitors gives you peripheral vision. Even though 90% of the information is not processed since you focus on the center, the 10% that indicates stuff like danger can still be seen and avoided. Just like how your normal eyes work if a sudden movement were to come at you from the corner.

I like my 22 inch monitors at 1680x1050 in portrait mode. That is 3318x1680 with bm. I have 5 matching dell dp monitors that I got for 149 each. Yes they are tn and no they are not perfect viewing as ips. But the good thing is I am not critical of the stuff like perfect colors and a little tearing. Does not bother me at all but others may feel differently. You could get 3 monitors and a 580 gtx for the cost of 1 30 inch monitor.


Using a 5970 right now and waiting on the big boy 7 series to go 5x1.

Ah, so you guys are saying that (for example) in bfbc2 when the resolution is set to 2560x1600, that I still see the same amount of information/fov that I do currently on my 1920x1200?

I was under the impression that it more or less kept everything the same size (as on the 24 inch) but the added pixel resolution DID show more information/fov.

So 2560x1600 30" monitor without AA is sort of the same thing as outputting to a 30" 1080p lcd tv with 2x or 4x AA? In other words, the graphics quality/horsepower goes up, but no new information is displayed.

Thanks for the input so far guys.

Let's say you're looking at a stadium of 10,000 people. You were some horse blinds and you can see 4,000 people currently. Going 3x1920x1200 is like removing the horse blinds allowing you to see more people (lets say 7,000 people instead). On the other hand going 1920x1200->2560x1600 is a lot like putting on better glasses, you can see people further away more clearly (you would still see 4,000 people). However since you have increased DPI, if your doing something where pixels matter e.g. pixel hunting in a game with pixel-perfect aim then it is helpful.

For example in Red Orchestra 2 you can snipe with any rifle's iron sights or Counter-strike with desert eagle, you pretty much get perfect aim across the map and with a bigger monitor you can snipe without zooming in more easily.

Also in an RTS or RPG with unlimited zoom you could zoom out more without having units become total pixels (e.g. Total War series, most other games will lock camera not to give an unfair advantage).

I appreciate all the answers in this thread. I had forgotten that eyefinity required all three monitors to be the same resolution. Is nvidia surround the same way?

Looks like I am just going to keep my 3x 24" setup - any time I tried to go back to single screen I did feel like I was playing with the "horse blinders" on.

My wife is very happy with this thread (she didn't want me to go out and buy a $1200-$1400 monitor) $) I originally wanted to reduce my EF pixel count because I have concerns that crossfire 5870s won't be enough for 5760x1200 in BF3 without dropping the settings too far down.

I guess I just need to try and tweak the settings on BF3 to still be able to play on 3 screen EF with my crossfire 5870s (with several open slots between them). I hope that will be enough power.

I had borrowed my brother's 5870 to try tri-fire, but the temperatures were insane (all 3 cards are the vapor-x version with the center fan) because the top two cards could get zero air. I'm talking 80 degrees C on the top card just sitting on the desktop, no load.

I investigated water cooling them, but the custom water blocks would be about $100 per card (x3) plus the tubes/reservoir/pump/radiator+fans ... I was looking at at least 500-600. That seemed like a lot of money to spend water cooling 3 5000 generation cards. I guess 2x 5870 will have to do. I suppose in the worst worst worst case scenario I could just play on one screen at 1920x1200 if the game is too resource demanding (i7-930 @ 3.5ghz, 6 gb RAM, HX1000 psu).