Widescreen Gaming Forum

[quote]I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

Uh, I don't follow that line of logic. The overall pixel count the card pushes doesn't magically change landscape vs portrait modes.

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels
3240x1920 = 6,220,800 pixels...

yea i caught that after i posted it idk why i thought it would be anydifferent as i was typing it hha

[quote][quote]I guess Nvidia needs to get with the program and make some 2.5 GB cards lol

But i guess for 3 monitors in portrait it shouldnt need that much vram...

Uh, I don't follow that line of logic. The overall pixel count the card pushes doesn't magically change landscape vs portrait modes.

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels
3240x1920 = 6,220,800 pixels...

yea i caught that after i posted it idk why i thought it would be anydifferent as i was typing it hha
No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |

No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

If anything portrait rotation is harder on the rendering pipeline because it adds in the rotation mechanic into the rendering. Portrait almost always sees more tearing than it's landscape counterpart.

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

[quote][quote]
Battlefield Bad Company 2, unless you're running Vietnam, has some nasty crashes occurring in Surround. You'd basically be lucky to complete a round, even if it was a quick one. :(

I haven't had any issues in Bad Company 2 at all, Vietnam or the main game in surround. I just got done playing Vietnam for about 5 hours, not one crash.
Um... because you were playing Vietnam? I can't even go for 20 minutes in Surround in vanilla BC2 without it crashing. On the same rig with Surround disabled, its fine for hours. eZ` has the same problem.

What kind of "crashes" are you guys experiencing? I get random black screens in Bad Company 2 running the 266.58 drivers, which required a reboot, but using the 260.99 drivers I have no issues in Bad Company 2 as far as crashes go.

[quote]
No he's correct, yes the pixel amounts are the same, but the shear amount of polygons that have to be rendered on screen are MUCH less. It does use less VRAm because there's less to be seen on screen. Everything get rendered crisper though.

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

If anything portrait rotation is harder on the rendering pipeline because it adds in the rotation mechanic into the rendering. Portrait almost always sees more tearing than it's landscape counterpart.
Well this is from a completely qualitative, non-put into numbers, not really tested hardcore experience. When I'd go from 3x1 L to 3x1 P I'd always have performance jump. I generally see tearing when I get MORE than 60 fps not less. Hence this may be why you're seeing more tearing. I also almost always use v-sync.

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |

I actually question that answer. The screen area is the same, hence the amount of polygons put onto the screen should be similar too. You're just trading additional vertical FOV polygons for horizontal FOV polygons and vice versa. Are you referring to the difference in % of the screen that is skybox in the two configurations?

No, because a Hor+ game in landscape does not become Vert+ in portrait. ;) In a Hor+ game, 3xP is less polygons because it's just narrower than 3xL. The pixel count is the same, but the amount of objects to be rendered (on the sides) is drastically reduced.

3x 16:10 = 4.8
3x 10:16 = 1.875 (only slightly wider than 16:9)

I'd just like to say that you need to consider that it will depend strongly on the game.

Also, by the time you get to 5x1L, the two side monitors will be seriously fisheyed by default, resulting in a far lower poly count on them.

I'd just like to say that you need to consider that it will depend strongly on the game.

Also, by the time you get to 5x1L, the two side monitors will be seriously fisheyed by default, resulting in a far lower poly count on them.

This I have experience on, and yes you are correct, they are soooooo fish eyed that there may on;y be a few objects on screen. But then again, When I went 5x1P i got a boost in FPS (by quite a lot).

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |

FOV seems to have an impact outright. Used to find that with Jedi Knight 2 in the early days of widescreening - if I played at 117 degrees (which I preferred, despite being 'too high' an FOV) then the FPS were about 10-15% lower than if I played it at 90 degrees (the default). Whether that is reproducible on modern GPUs I don't know; might try it if I get the chance. That was back on a 64MB Radeon 9000 Mobility so it wasn't exactly a powerful GPU. ;) I still gamed on it at 1680x1050 for several years, though. :D

I have gtx 460 1gb sli with 3 monitors and all games run fine for me but i'm only in 5350X1050, metro 2033 is not at very high anymore and i also have no AA on most games but thats ok, playing with 3 monitors is better then one :D