3 screen surround setup.

[Baldwonder]

Heya, I am more curious than anything at this stage and have been looking around for an answer but there seem to be a lot of different opinions on the subject.

Basically I am trying to find out how to figure out how much GPU power is required to run certain games in surround, preferably on Max settings. and above 50/60 fps constantly.


The games I am looking at currently are Battlefield 3, Batman Arkham City and potentially Guild Wars 2.

This isn't urgent I am just trying to figure out if there is a way to "work out" at least approximately how much GPU is required to run this kind of set-up. As discussed in another thread I am not looking to buy right this second as I only have enough in the budget for the other components in the rig, however I will be investing shortly so wanted to get ahead of the game and figured out how to approximate the requirements - if there even is a way to do so. Most bench marks that I see are for a single monitor set-up, I am guessing it isn't as easy as just multiplying by 3. (correct me if I am wrong) Also i understand that vRam play a big part in tri-monitor set-ups but again there seem to masses of different opinions on how much is needed also.

Interested in both 2d and 3d surround running on 3x 1920x1080 24" screens.

Any help or points in the right direction would be ace, also I apologise if this is a daft question or the answer is right in front of me but the answer escapes me at the moment and would appreciate a shove in the right direction.

Cheers all in advance!

 

[wassupdoc]

It maybe slightly old, but this should give you a good idea of the minimum required
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-surround-stereoscopic-gaming,2672-5.html

 

[Baldwonder]

Cheers for the link, it was good read.

Essentially my understanding from that is 3d surround is twice as demanding than 2d surround(makes perfect sense).

From other benchmarks it seems that 2d surround (5760x1080) is just over twice as demanding as 1 screen running at 1920x1080. which is a little less logical but this seems to be approximately what the numbers say.

Do these numbers seem about right or have I missed something? Iv looked at the same cards benchmarked on the same games in both 2d surround and then again in 1080p. The 3d calculation was mentioned in the toms hardware review. Seemed logical so I stopped searching for more answers on that one.

EDIT: I have also found a review here that seems to indicate that for a 670 running battlefiled maxed out runs at 62fps average.(1080) and 25fps average(5760) which seems to tie in with my above statement. Anyone with any more experience when it comes to these numbers? Do they seem about right?

 

[FOX91]

I may be wrong here but so much as I've seen from videos of triple screen setups, in most games the side screens are less "busy" than the centre screen because you tend to face the action . Perhaps that explains why you don't need 3 times as much GPU power to run triple screen.

 

[Baldwonder]

I may be wrong here but so much as I've seen from videos of triple screen setups, in most games the side screens are less "busy" than the centre screen because you tend to face the action . Perhaps that explains why you don't need 3 times as much GPU power to run triple screen.

That seems logical, but only in certain circumstances I guess, unless the side screens are not prioritised and become a little less, for what of a better word, crisp (focused).

Cheers for the input though, logic seems to make sense to me.

 

[jamesriley94]

I'd guess quite a lot is under the hood though. Like, it isnt processing each of the 3 screens, it's processing 1 image at a triple screen resolution (5760x1080)

 

[wassupdoc]

I'd guess quite a lot is under the hood though. Like, it isnt processing each of the 3 screens, it's processing 1 image at a triple screen resolution (5760x1080)

Exactly that

 

[XANADV]

Well from what I have seen out there, to run BF3 @ 5760x1080 at max settings you need 2x GTX680/670 or 3x HD 7970 (BF3 plays better with green than red, correct me if I'm wrong) Also you will need more than 2GB VRAM to run at that resolution reliably. You should get the fps you're looking for here.

 

[jamesriley94]

You can run BF3 at that res with a single 7950 OC and get 35 fps, which most would argue was playable, especially for a single card

 

[Baldwonder]

Iv read that BF3 is "playable" on a 7970 3/6GB single card at max settings, however the 680 is not quite enough to handle the resolution. I was toying with the idea of a single card and then replace it somewhere down the line when its not powerful enough to run most things near max settings.(high at least) Do the new amd cards seem like a better choice for a single card at present? They do run hotter and louder from benchmarks I have seen which worries me sightly over getting a nVidia alternative. Maybe a 670/80 4gb would suffice at these sort of settings?

I think I would be happier to lower the setting a touch rather than go the dual card route at this stage.

 

[XANADV]

Iv read that BF3 is "playable" on a 7970 3/6GB single card at max settings, however the 680 is not quite enough to handle the resolution. I was toying with the idea of a single card and then replace it somewhere down the line when its not powerful enough to run most things near max settings.(high at least) Do the new amd cards seem like a better choice for a single card at present? They do run hotter and louder from benchmarks I have seen which worries me sightly over getting a nVidia alternative. Maybe a 670/80 4gb would suffice at these sort of settings?

I think I would be happier to lower the setting a touch rather than go the dual card route at this stage.

I guess it would be playable if you lowered the settings some. I think it would make more sense to just get two cards off the bat and keep them for 2-3 years rather than simply replacing a single card when it no longer satisfies, but if you would like to go the single-card route, keep in mind that AMD cards do run hotter because they draw more power. 4GB 670 or 680 is a better option for 5760x1080; VRAM does NOT stack in multi-gpu configurations anyway.

 

[jamesriley94]

Define playable

I have a mate that's happy to play BF3 at ultra settings 1080p on a 5770. Cant imagine his framerates are really above 30

 

[Baldwonder]

Define playable

I have a mate that's happy to play BF3 at ultra settings 1080p on a 5770. Cant imagine his framerates are really above 30

I guess playable to me is ensuring that the fps is always above 30fps, meaning that it is a lot higher when the screen & GFX card are not particularly busy.

I don't usually play First person shooters with less than 50/60 frames per second to be honest, not in multi player anyway, but Im happy to turn down the gfx in order to do so, as i feel that multi player is less about the immersion and more about the game play. Where as in single player games, the GFX are much more important and a sacrificing a few frames is perfectly fine.

In short -
single player as high GFX output as possible 30fps minimum
multi player medium to high settings 50/60 fps constant.

@ XANADV - I am aware of the Ram not stacking, however I was looking at the larger 3gb or 6gb 7970's available which have a more comparable vRAM to the 4gb nVidia cards.

Been doing some reading and whilst a lot of people seem to say you need more vRam than 2gb, the benchmarks and reviews seem to think that the extra does not get used....maybe a waste of money?

 

[jamesriley94]

Extra RAM isnt really used no...
Games like BF3 will use all the RAM it needs, and then use it as cache or similar and just fill up the excess RAM - leading some people to think that the game is actually using all the RAM, when infact it isnt.

 

[Baldwonder]

That's the impression that I got, I guess meaning that the performance effect will be negligible at best with a 4gb card over a 2gb card? Im sure there will be some but not a great deal to worry about. Unless again I have got myself confuzzled!

How long after the 660ti's come out do you think we shall see a change in prices or wont it happen until the 700 series cards appear. I wasn't paying a lot of attention last time round 500 -> 600 series I mean.

 

[jamesriley94]

No I think that's about right. I'd like to see performance benchmarks in FPS between a 4gb 670 and a 2gb at different resolutions to see if it actually makes a difference

 

[Baldwonder]

No I think that's about right. I'd like to see performance benchmarks in FPS between a 4gb 670 and a 2gb at different resolutions to see if it actually makes a difference

I cant seem to find many comparisons between the two 670 cards, but i read this last night. it shows atleast a comparison of a 4gb and 2gb 680 at 1920x1080 and 5760x1080.

I figured the trends will be similar between the 670s and 680s even if the actual numbers are a little different.

Battlefield 3 Comparison - others too

 

[JackyBoy]

I'm currently running BF3 on 2x 670s 2gb at 5910x1200. At this resolution it runs at about 45 fps on average, never really dipping at all. Only time it does is when you run into full smoke screen then it drops to about 20fps, which isn't great tbh. Motion blur off, msaax4 everything else ultra.

 

[Baldwonder]

I'm currently running BF3 on 2x 670s 2gb at 5910x1200. At this resolution it runs at about 45 fps on average, never really dipping at all. Only time it does is when you run into full smoke screen then it drops to about 20fps, which isn't great tbh. Motion blur off, msaax4 everything else ultra.

Thank you for your input, that helps a lot. Ill have to bare that in mind when it comes to the time of me purchasing the GPU.