BRIGHT SIDE OF NEWS About | Advertise | Contact BSN USER Login
| Register 		SUBSCRIBE Newsletter | RSS Feeds
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Email this to a friend.
Your friend's e-mail:
Your Name:
Your e-mail:
Message subject:
Comments
Eyefinity is about resolution by: Anonymous on 2/5/2010
It seems that most don't understand that Eyefinity is about resolution, which matter more than monitor/TV size.
A 52" TV or a 72" for that matter is still 1920x1080 resolution.
3 x 30" monitors with each 2560x1600 gives hugely more resolution, 7680x1600.
More resolution gives you more field of view, simply see more of the virtual environment.
Try a flight simulator on such high resolution, then you'll understand why Eyefinity is great.
by: Anonymous on 12/23/2009
Are you guys done bitching about bandwidth yet? The fact of the matter is that you need HMDI or dual-link DVI to support 120hz at 1920x1080 or 60hz at 2560x1600. 120hz is what you need to produce a 60hz 3D image due to two frames of content being needed to produce one smooth image.

You know what I want? I want 3x ~40" 1920x1080 120hz LCD's WITHOUT SCALERS for smooth gaming. Dont really care about 3D.

A-S
From the ATi Site by: Sean Kalinich on 12/22/2009
Here it is direct from the AMD/ATi site

ATI Eyefinity technology works with games that support non-standard aspect ratios which is required for panning across three displays.

so if a game only supports 16:10 it will not be able to play properly across a screen that is 48:10
Ibrin by: Sean Kalinich on 12/22/2009
How interesting that you comment without know what research I have done.

You yourself mention that if the developer does not support it you provide a hack
This is an UNSUPPORTED hack created by you.
This means that it is not supported in the game.

Also looking at the page you linked gives me a list of games, clicking on the fist few show max aspect ratios of 16:10. that is not the ratio of Eyefinity with three monitors. plus no mention of eyefinity support on the game manufacturer's home pages and even on your pages you do not say if it supports eyefinity. Just that it supports widescreen gaming.

Speaking with game developers most have no plans to include support for eyefinity or none standard aspect ratios. If you hack it that does not make it supported. I can hack my copy of windows to play fart noises at start up that does not make it an official MS supported sound.
You sir, are wrong by: Ibrin on 12/18/2009
@Sean Kalinich - You state that games don't support it. We've cataloged over 220 games that do in the WSGF Wiki - http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Surround plus additional games where we haven't made individual pages yet. If the developer didn't provide support, we find and provide the hack.

The biggest names in each genre support it:
FPS - HL2 (anything Source), Quake 4, Doom 3, MOH, COD, BF2, STALKER, FEAR, L4D, L4D2, TF2
MMO - WOW, LOTRO, DDO
RPG - NWN, NWN2, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3
Action - GTA4, Assassin's Creed, Overlord, Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge
Racing - GTR, GT Legends, DIRT, RFactor, GRID
RTS - C&C3, C&C:RA2, RON, AOE3, AOM,
TBS - Civ3, Civ4

I love how time and time again, people continue to make claims on the cost, the support and the performance without any hands-on experience, doing any actual research or even reading previous posts.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com
Dumb gimmick by: Anonymous on 12/18/2009
How many freaking monitors do I need on my desktop??? and performance is going to blow on any graphics intensive games.

Why not put the effort into better drivers rather than dumb gimmicks...
HDMI and TMDS by: Sean Kalinich on 12/17/2009
audio and auxiliary data are only transmitted during the blanking period. meaning that Video still has the full 10.2

"Transition Minimized Differential Signaling (TMDS) on HDMI carries video, audio, and auxiliary data via one of three modes, called the Video Data Period, the Data Island Period, and the Control Period.[71] During the Video Data Period, the pixels of an active video line are transmitted.[71] During the Data Island period (which occurs during the horizontal and vertical blanking intervals), audio and auxiliary data are transmitted within a series of packets.[71] The Control Period occurs between Video and Data Island periods.[71]"

Each is a separate interval they are not transmitted all at the same time so each has the full bandwidth available even if they are not using it.
No Sean by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/17/2009
TMDS carries only video on DVI!
On HDMI, it has video, audio, AND auxiliary data (control bits). Therefore the maximum bandwidth for video is 8.16Gbit/s.
Differences by: Sean Kalinich on 12/17/2009
Considering the difference between being able to stream HD video over wireless and not being able to was only 43Mbps then yes even using your numbers that is a lot. You are talking about a difference of 200Mbps [8.12-7.92=0.20 .2*1000=200]

In other words more than four times the needed bandwidth to stream 1080p HD video over a wireless device. More than ten times the average high speed internet connection in the US [18Mbps] to put it in perspective.
@Radu and HDMI by: Sean Kalinich on 12/17/2009
HDMI has a maximum TMDS [Transition Minimized Deferential Signaling] bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps. TMDS is traditionally video only signaling.

Under the HDMI specification it lists the maximum video bandwidth as the maximum used for the highest supported resolution.

The number you are listing the the amount used at its current maximum supported resolution of 4069x2160. For audio it only uses 36.86Mbps.

This means there is more available bandwidth for video than is being currently used by HDMI.

My comment was that HDMI has more available bandwidth in single link than Dual Link DVI does.
DVI vs. HDMI by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/16/2009
Sean, you should check again.

HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 have 10.2 Gbit/s total bandwidth, but as you said that includes "IP traffic as well as other types of traffic", more specifically SOUND.
HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 VIDEO bandwidth is 8.16 Gbit/s. Is that such a big difference from the 7.92 Gbit/s dual-link DVI has? No it isn't.

And forget about dual-link HDMI, so far there are no products that use it, but yes, it is theoretically possible to achieve double the bandwidth.
DX11 Games by: Sean Kalinich on 12/16/2009
Actually there are three
Stalker COP
Dirt 2
Battle Forge

As far as those numbers go they are inflated.
They include OEMs and VARs like Dell, Maingear, and others that buy these products direct from AMD or their partners

Plus not everyone that owns a 5xxx card will use Eyefinity so the numbers are not an indication of how many people are using the tech. that is the equivalent of saying that because there have been 800k sold there are 400k people using Crossfire 5xxx cards.
5XXX 800,000 by: Greg442 on 12/16/2009
AMD reports some 800,000 have adopted there new eyefinity. These cards, though availability is low are selling like hotcakes. E-sellers like Newegg can't keep em in stock. Now since there’s only 1 DX 11 game atm (dirt 2) it's my guess a very large percentage those 800,00 customers adopted these card because of the eyefinity. See Newegg reviews. Making disparaging comments about Eyefinity because you're beholden to NVidia... is just silly. Eyefinity was a brilliant idea unlike silly NVidia 3D glasses, Eyefinity is here to stay. Now I’m quite sure whenever Fermi is released BSN will write the most flattering fluff articles ever known to man… but as of right now December 16th 2009, ATI 5XXX eyefinity GPU’s are the fastest graphics cards in the World.
@Dirt2 by: Sean Kalinich on 12/16/2009
as I said "Until AMD is able to invest more, things like Eyefinity and even their OpenCL implementation will suffer and be slow to be adopted."

Even AMD has admitted they have not had the funds to invest heavily in game development.
I did not say there would be no games, just that they will be limited in number until AMD has more disposable income.
HDMI Vs DVI by: Sean Kalinich on 12/16/2009
Dual Link DVI is -
Maximum clock frequency in dual link mode: Limited only by cable quality (up to 7.92 Gbit/s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface#Specifications

HDMI 1.3 is -
Higher speed: Although all previous versions of HDMI have had more than enough bandwidth to support all current HDTV formats, including full, uncompressed 1080p signals, HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#15

HDMI 1.3 has more single link bandwidth than Dual Link DVI 7.92 Vs 10.2 Gbps

HDMI 1.4 increased that to include IP traffic as well as other types of traffic.
by: Anonymous on 12/16/2009
"As AMD is still hurting from Debt, they do not have the resources (money) to push development on this so it will be up to game devs to invest money to get this going."

This is an ironic comment given that this article is generated from the addition of the feature to a game that AMD has partnered with and after the release of another title that AMD partnered with that features both DX11 and Eyefinity (Dirt2).
I give up by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/16/2009
HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 have the same maximum bandwidth as a dual-link DVI, so that's another incorrect fact you use in your argument.

Yes my question was rhetorical, but you were supposed to learn something from it. It was meant to show you that nVidia chose a 120Hz LCD because they needed one that can display 120FPS. If your normal LCD with an image refresh rate of 60Hz can go higher than 60FPS and even 200FPS (going by your calculations based on response time) why didn't they just stick to that? Wouldn't it be better for their technology to be compatible with every monitor available on the market?
They didn't because it's not a software issue, it's not a connector issue, it's a hardware issue on the monitor side, particularly it's controller.

Still don't believe me? Go ahead and email one or more of the monitor manufactures, I'm sure you have some contacts, and you'll see. Cause that's the problem with people, logic doesn't provide enough credibility for them, they need to hear it from someone who is known in that specific field regardless of his level of knowledge.

Better yet, if you can get hold of a high speed camera, and I know for a fact that you guys at BSN have at least one RED camera, record a normal LCD while an advanced timer is running on the screen, and then compare the frames in one second. I guarantee you won't see more than 60 distinct frames, the rest will just be duplicates.


I'm going to say right now that this argument ends on my side, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm only going to post again if I manage to get hold of someone at Samsung, Eizo or some other manufacturer and give you their side. Or if you like I can just email you so we don't add any more "spam" to this article about Eyefinity. I think you can see my email address if I'm logged in.
@you're wrong by: Sean Kalinich on 12/16/2009
As the comment in the article was also about cost three projectors would be even more cost prohibitive.

Eyefinity is an interesting idea but it is just like 3D Vision, too costly and not enough real impact to be viable right now.

It is also important to note that not that many games support eyefinity because the resolution is not a standard listed (nor is the aspect ratio). As AMD is still hurting from Debt, they do not have the resources (money) to push development on this so it will be up to game devs to invest money to get this going. This is something that game devs do not want to do without help from the company that owns the code.

It is why we see more NV optimized games, they are spending tons of money to get their technology into the games. Until AMD is able to invest more things like Eyefinity and even their OpenCL implementation will suffer and be slow to be adopted.

@Radu
Your question is rhetorical and we both know it. it does not require an answer.

Either way understand that you are still incorrect. it is not the monitor that has the limit. It is the PC and the connection.
After all HDMI has a much higher bandwidth that DVI and there are many panels out that support that and HDMI 1.3 (1.4 support will be late 2010). Again I will say this, the monitor can support higher than 60FPS. The PC and the software driving it are the limits. but as with all software, there are ways around this.

The myth about this was started years ago by the big CRT tube makers to try and stop the uptake of the LCD panel in the market. It has been around since then, it was false then just as it is now.
Agreed by: Greg442 on 12/16/2009
Thanks for getting this thread back on track Anonymous. It's about Eyefinity...not Hz, refresh rates, yada, yada yada.
You're both wrong, and you're both idjits! by: Anonymous on 12/16/2009
Seriously, watching the two of you 'experts' debate this is like watching school children argue astro-physics based on what they've learned from Star Wars, Star Trek and Lt. Starbuck.

Get over yourselves, cuz yer not as SMRT as you think U is.

As for the article, you miss the point as well, and obviously it's because you neither have the 52" TV (why so small? min 58" on a Good Plasma for less than 1/4 what I paid for my first 40").

I see you 52" TV and raise you 3 projectors setup in surround gaming mode. Until you've gamed like that you really aren't in a position to talk about it as if you're an expert, because you don't know what you're missing and thus can't appreciate it either.

And the LAN-party argument should've been removed from the article especially so close to BS about a 52" TV, which is far less portable.

Almost all of the feature outside the basic D3D/OGL scope are checkboxes for someone out there, but I'd rather have the options for the checkboxes (be it Eyefinity or 3DVision regardless of brand) than be held back by the idjits who just don't get it, but like to criticize it like they're authorities.

Don't game over there... There be Dragons!

(doubt you'd even get the reference) Luddites !!
by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
Sean, I'm sorry if it felt like a personal attack.

Response time is a characteristic of the panel, or better yet of each liquid crystal that forms a subpixel. Because in 2 different frames one pixel can effectively stay the same while another can go from black to white, it is impossible to realistically measure the number of frames per second a PANEL can output, but based on our calculations it's safe to say that it will always be over 400FPS with a 5ms panel (measured black to black).

The term "image refresh rate" for an LCD monitor is a whole different thing. It's a property of the hardware controller inside the monitor and it represents how many times per second the monitor draws a new image. This is the definition you will find everywhere, right? Check my links, including yours. You don't need any technical documentation to understand that drawing a new image is the same as drawing a new frame and therefore the number of new images a monitor can draw in a second represents the FPS it can achieve.

Yes, an LCD monitor doesn't have the same "refresh rate" as a CRT has, so maybe the term is improperly used here, but any monitor has a frequency at which they refresh or redraw the image on screen. So those 60Hz still represent the ultimate number of FPS a monitor can output. The PANEL can, the monitor CAN'T!

That quote you gave from page 8 refers to LCD PANELS, not the whole monitor, in terms that they don't need to constantly refresh like a CRT does, and because of this they don't have a refresh rate.
BUT, if you read more, you'll see it says that an LCD monitor is limited in terms of "image refresh rate" by the connector and the way the monitor itself is designed. That last part is what I said previously about the monitor controller. A single-link DVI only has 60Hz@1920x1200 and up to 85Hz@1280x1024. http://www.ddwg.org/lib/dvi_10.pdf

Which brings me to a question you haven't answered yet. Why do you think nVidia 3D vision needs a 120Hz monitor? And why does it use a dual-link DVI connector?
@Sean by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
"That monitor has a response time of 5ms"

Response rate is about about reducing the latency from the pixel changing from one color to the next when it refreshes so that it removes any blurring or "trailing" artifacts that are not present on CRT's because they don't have the lacency issues LCD's have.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

Refresh rate is still governed by the bandwidths that the interconnects can cope with.
Tweakguide Page 8 by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
If you go one more page you will see a different story about LCDs

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_8.html

Well it appears that LCD monitors need to emulate a refresh rate in Windows primarily for compatibility purposes with games and hardware. Games, Windows and your graphics card are all still designed around composing individual frames in the frame buffer, and sending these whole frames to your monitor one by one, with the timing for buffer flipping typically based on Vertical Blank Intervals - all things which were originally required for CRT monitors. Therefore LCD panels have to try to operate on the same basis, despite the fact that they don't have the same physical limitations of a CRT.

The fact is that this is no longer true and has not been for some time.
Getting Personal by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
You know when the personal attacks come out it is usually an indication that your argument is failing.

Please refrain from them in future comments.
FUD by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
Again you are spouting one of the most common myths out there.

Repeating it does not make it true.

Take the monitor that I linked below.
it has a Vertical Refresh from 56Hz to 85Hz
so that means, by your logic, it can handle up to 85FPS.

So which is it? Response time? Refresh?

The sheer amount of FUD and crap out there about this subject is ridiculous. In the end the Panel is capable of displaying images at "frame rates" higher than what is being described as refresh.
One last time by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
If you are unable to read my whole comment I'll just repeat the important part:

It's not the LCD panel nor the pixels and their response time, IT'S THE ELECTRONIC PART of the monitor that can only draw 60 different images (frames) in 1 second!
You're silly by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
I say 5ms means 200 FPS, you say I'm wrong and it's 200FPS.
I say the number is actually higher because in real life you don't have to go from black to black, you say I'm wrong because "you do not have to go to completely to black each time".
Do you hear yourself? Your saying that I'm wrong but at the same time you're supporting everything I say...
Here you go by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
I was about to say why didn't you just google "LCD refresh rate FPS" but then I realized you did, only you pressed "I'm feeling lucky" instead of being more thorough.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_7.html (this is the link you posted)
"Refresh rate is measured in frequency (Hz) which translates into the number of times per second your monitor actually redraws the entire screen. Thus a refresh rate of 60Hz means that your monitor will actually redraw the entire screen contents 60 consecutive times during a single second;" - doesn't that spell frames per second to you?

http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-frames-per-second-and-response-times-in-lcd-and-crt-technologies#
"The basic rule of FPS is if your monitor isn't displaying it, you aren't going to see them. (...) Now that the LCD monitors weren't flickering, most people forgot about refresh rates and started to discuss response times alone. But when gamers realized their new monitors could only display 60 frames per second at any resolution, they were naturally upset. Only very recently (~2007) have LCD manufactures caught on and started making displays designed for higher refresh rates"

http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-frames-per-second-and-response-times-in-lcd-and-crt-technologies#
"Refresh rates of televisions and other types of video displayed are measured in "hz" (Hertz). For example: A Television with a 60hz refresh rate represents complete reconstruction of the screen image 60 times every second." - if you think FPS is the wrong term because it's used with video cards, try Images Per Second, but it's the same thing


What other people think:
http://www.overclock.net/graphics-cards-general/306424-does-screen-refresh-rate-max-fps.html
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=67909965&m=326097472
http://www.techimo.com/forum/graphics-cards-displays/201424-refresh-rate-fps.html

"you cannot perceive fps higher than the refresh rate, even IF you could see above 60fps."
"the refresh rate is as often as the screen will update the image (so effectively yes thats the fps)"
"your gpu could produce 100's of fps but the monitor will only show the frames at its refresh rate"
"if the gpu prodeces 120 fps and your display is 60 hz, then every 60 ms the screen wil be updated with a new image, missing the ones that it can't keep up with but not noticeable to you"
"Your video card is capable of generating as many frames per second as it wants, but you'll technically only see them as often as your monitor can refresh itself."
"As I understand it refresh rate = fps. There is a setting in most if not all games to tie framerate to the refresh rate (vsync). The fps cannot exceed the the refresh, games will tell you a high fps, but there isn't telling you what you see on the screen, it is telling you what you machine is capable of."
"Obviously, when the display unit isn't updating more often than X times per second (refresh rate), then rendering more than X images per second isn't going to make a difference"
"The refresh rate for your monitor and FPS are not usually linked. FPS is the amount of Frames Per Second your game attempts to draw, and can vary greatly depending upon your system and how much work it has to perform. The refresh rate is a set amount of times per second your monitor will redraw the screen picture. The monitor does not care how many times the frame changes as drawn by the computer, it still runs at the rate you set."

And this is just the first page of results... Need more? Help yourself: http://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=LCD+refresh+rate+FPS&start=20
Thanks by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
For correcting the math but you are still off.
1000ms=1 Second that means that at 5ms you are still making 200 changes per second. And I also mentioned that you do not have to go to completely to black each time but as you are able to go from Black to Black at 5/1000 then you would be able to display more than 60FPS.

Again the Hz of the LCD pannel has nothing to do with the number of frames per second it can display, unless you are in V-snyc mode. which syncs the number of rendered frames to a multiple of the "refresh".
@Radu by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
If what you are saying is true then how do you account for Horizontal "refresh"?

Put simply what you are claiming is incorrect.

Please show me technical documentation that show the hardware in an LCD is incapable of showing more than 60FPS.

You cannot.

You have linked an undocumented article on Wiki and keep spouting about refresh rate. Something that DOES NOT EXIST in LCD panels.
One more thing by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
Oh and the link you posted has an article made for newbies with a quote from NEC addressed to consumers, which translates into marketing. Nice going...
It basically tells us that the refresh rate encountered in CRT monitors is not the same thing with LCDs, but we've covered this already so there's no point really.
by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
Sean, I'm not a consumer. I know how an LCD works, more than you can imagine.
Stop for a second and think about what image refresh means. Isn't it the changing from one frame to another? Every single display out there refreshes, no matter what technology it uses, otherwise they couldn't display more than one image.

Yes, those liquid crystals can "open" and "close" really fast. Check your math, 1000ms (that's one whole second) divided by 5ms equals 200 changes, not 200k and not even 50k. It actually higher than 200 because in real life pixels don't have to go from black to white and then black again, but that's NOT THE POINT.

I will say this one more time, so please listen: it's not about the pixels nor the panel. God I wish I could write that in bold or at least underline it.
An LCD monitor consists of a panel and an electronic part. The later takes the signal from whatever source it comes from, it translates it and then sends electric current to the panel/liquid crystals causing them to open/close the right amount. IT'S THIS ELECTRONIC PART THAT's LIMITED TO ONLY 60FPS!

I know it sounds stupid, but that's the truth. The reason why manufactures don't go higher than 60Hz is that most people don't need it. 60 is pretty high as it is, considering that movies have 24FPS and nobody minds.

Still don't believe me? Grab a high speed camera, nothing fancy, even Sony consumer camcorders can do 120FPS and record an LCD monitor, one with the lowest response time if you will, while a timer is running on it. Then check each frame to see if you get more than 60 different images in one second.
@ RAdu again by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
Sorry here you are simply wrong
if the image does not change the pixels do nothing, they only "refresh" if the image changes.

Period,
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1248
Since LCD monitors do not employ phosphors, refresh rate is not a concern. Basically, the transistors in the LCD remain open or closed as needed until the image changes. This can be a point of confusion for some consumers, however, since most graphics cards still “ask for” a refresh rate setting. This is due to the analog nature of existing graphic cards (see “Inputs” section) and their support for CRT displays. While refresh rates do not apply to LCD monitors, most LCDs are set up to accept any settings from 60Hz and above.
@Radu by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
Again read what I wrote about LCDs they do not refresh.
I will correct my math though

5ms is 200,000 possible changes from Black to Black per second.

If they measure Grey to Grey that is 50k changes possible per second.
by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
Well first of all, it should be known Eyefinity is not a new technology it has been around for years now mostly in the form of the Matrox TH2GO Unit. What Eyefinity did was bring this expensive technology to the mainstream enthusiast without making you fork out the extra $$$ for an expensive extra piece of equipment, now its a part of your video card.

There is a lot more reasons to have a new 5850 or 5870 than for Eyfinity. They are very powerful cards, support DX11, and are aggressively priced. Eyefinity is just an extra that your getting basically for free so there at its core there is nothing to complain about if you do not like it. Its a free bonus.

Now if you do choose to take advantage of it, the cost mentioned of $1000 is wrong, I have seen nice sets of 3 matched monitors for as low as $350 that will work well with Eyefinity. To say FPS will go down, yes it will but when a game is already at 200fps on a single screen, taking it down to "only" 100fps on 3 screens is not a loss its still just a gain with the extra FOV and immersion.

Speaking of immersion, thats really the point here. Its not to be a better player, to get more kills, or to have an advantage over somebody in a game online, its to enhance the enjoyability of a game and bring a gaming experience to a new more realistic level. I have a 37" large screen and 3x24" screens. I loved my single large screen and think it was a great purchase but it doesnt even start to compare what its like to play a game across the 3x24" monitors.

The experience is so nice that I am quite biased on games that do not support it now. I am going and playing games that I would have not played otherwise or revisiting older games just because they support the tech (Playing HL2 again for instance), and not playing because they do not support it (Borderlands).

Performance is great, at a native resolution of 5760x1200 the only game I have tried that wont run with a good frame rate on my single 5870 is Crysis.

Games I have played that work perfectly totally maxed out.

Dirt 2
rFactor
Need for Speed Shift
Dragon Age Origins
Torchlight
Halflife 2 and all its related games
Team Fortress 2
Serious Sam HD
Batman Arkham Asylum
Left 4 Dead 2
Call of Duty Modern warfare 2
and a lot more

Too showcase just how playable the frame rate is take a look at one of my many youtube videos where I was playing with no lag or frame drops WHILE recording the whole thing with FRAPS, and as anybody knows that uses fraps you take a huge hit in your frame rate while recording, imagine recording 5760x1200 :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU9ffw_AvSk

Oh and lastly bezels do not bother you, your not actively looking from left to right across all 3 monitors, you still use the center monitor as usual and let the two side monitors fill your peripheral vision. You do not see or notice the bezels, if you wanted to look left you would turn left just like normal.
Check X3:Reunion/Terran Conflict by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
This is what I call multi-monitor support, no need of driver based technology.
That thing ATI did? Rarely a game stretches that well, and bezels on todays modern monitors just hurt eyes.

As someone said before me you stretch only front FOV, which also requires correction.
That does it! by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
Sean, you clearly don't know what your talking about!

Read again the very article you linked and posted: "However if your FPS is higher than your refresh rate at any time, YOUR MONITOR WILL NOT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DISPLAY ALL OF THESE FRAMES"

This is exactly what I said in each of my comment, why can't you understand? "not actually be able to display all of these frames" means that the refresh rate limits the number of frames that you, the user, finally see. If your video card renders 200 frames per second, not all of them will be shown by the monitor. Only 60 will be shown, weather they are 60 normal frames or some of them are made by half of one frame and half of the other due to screen tearing, it's ultimatelly the same thing, 60FPS.

The latency of the PIXELS that form a panel has nothing to do with the number of frames per second a monitor (THE ELECTRONIC PART that analyzes the input signal and sends it to the panel) can display. Yo don't actually believe that do you? Again, consider nVidia 3D vision. They needed a monitor that could display 120 frames per second, 60 for each eye. They didn't just go with a low latency, they chose a 120Hz monitor!

But the thing that showed me you don't know what you're talking about was that little comment about Hz being used to measure backlight flicker. Physics 101: Hertz (Hz) is the unit for frequency. Grab a schoolbook if you don't believe me. It measures a bunch of things, like CPU, GPU or memory cycles, the flickering of a light bulb or monitor refresh rate and so on... You can also read about it in one of my previous comments.
Make no mistake, LCDs still have a refresh rate, not in the way CRT monitors had, but it still represents how many times they draw a new image in one second, or FPS!

I really do hope that was your last comment...
This is just the beginning, don't limit your perception to what's available now. by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
I think eyefinity is actually a very good idea. Sure, not all game support it and you don't get side-windows now BUT give me a break, it just came out!

Saying it is useless just because it doesn't provide you with what you expect right when it just came out is too much of a whiny attitude. As the cards come out ATI should make sure (as Nvidia does with Physx) to support the developer in order to add more functionality to their cards.

So while you don't get your side-windows now, maybe you will in the next version.
one last comment by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001280

That monitor has a response time of 5ms
that means the individual pixels can go from black to black in 5 millionths of a second.

for all practical purposed that pixel can change (or refresh) 5 Million times each second. that is a little more than the 60FPS limit you are talking about.

drivers and GPU still think in terms of CRT refresh and list this for legacy purposes (and also to maintain a certain frequency in data transmission). but the actual panels no longer "refresh"
Refresh by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
It is also important to remember that LCDs do not refresh in the traditional manner like a CRT which had a real refresh and scan line.

Instead an LCD is measured in terms of latency.

this is the measure of how has it can go from black to white then back to black. considering that most LCDs are at 16ms or less they can display significantly higher than 60FPS.

The Hz listed is the Hz of the back light which enables you to see the actual image, without this you would only see a black screen.
@Radu by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
It is simply not true that 60Hz means it cannot show more than 60FPS.

60Hz is simply the refresh of the screen, it will redraw what ever is on the screen at the time. if it is in between frames being drawn it will appear as tearing. (this is why V-Sync is an option).

refresh is not a limit like you think and many claim

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_7.html

"FPS vs. Refresh Rate

As previously mentioned, FPS and refresh rate are two separate things. Even if the image on your screen has not changed in any way (e.g. a still 2D image like your Windows Desktop), or your 3D game isn't actually supplying enough new frames (e.g. the game is running at 25 FPS on a 60Hz refresh rate), the screen is still being redrawn a fixed number of times based on the current refresh rate of the monitor; if your FPS is less than your refresh rate at any time, some frames may simply be redrawn several times by the monitor.

However if your FPS is higher than your refresh rate at any time, your monitor will not actually be able to display all of these frames, and some will come out with a graphical glitch known as Tearing. To prevent this, you can enable an option called Vertical Synchronization (VSync). However here's the tricky part: if VSync is enabled, then your refresh rate and FPS will actually have a relationship to each other - they will become synchronized together, and your FPS may even fall a great deal overall. This is all covered in more detail in the Vertical Synchronization section."

The redraw on the screen will happen regardless of the point of output from the GPU. so it you between frame one and two then you see the tearing mentioned. However, the monitor is still able to display these frames. If and only if you enable V-Sync do you limit the FPS rendered by the GPU to a multiple of the Refresh
as it must sync with the refresh properly
@Sean Kalinich by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
You completely missed my point!

I never said that FPS and refresh rate are the same thing. I actually pointed out that they are different, or haven't you read my whole comment?

Yes, a video card CAN and will render over 200FPS if it has the muscle, but your monitor will never display more than 60 if it has a refresh rate of 60Hz.
It doesn't matter if you sync the frames or not, tearing means you get part of one frame and the rest is from another one, but combined they still act as ONE complete frame.

It's like trying to place eggs in the refrigerator. If you have enough money you can buy two dozens, but you won't be able to keep more than your egg tray can hold.

Oh and in case you live in the US and don't know what's up in the rest of the world, all computer monitors have a refresh rate of 60Hz or multiples of 60Hz. Only TV sets are differentiated by region.

I must say I'm a little disappointed, I expected more from you...
If you don't trust me or that Wiki page, ask Theo, I still have faith in him.



@Anonymous: we never said Bobby has a 52" TV. If English is not your main language try to learn it or use a translator, otherwise you'll just look like an idiot.
you guys are idiots by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
He never said he had a 52in tv and if you look at the price of the asus monter you put three of those togather its close to $1000 well actully under. i jsut htink this bobby p was asked what he thought about it. there are both benifits and Cons from it also. The writer should asked more people for input then jsut one person out there. Plus i know for a fact multi moniter gaming would be fun but i for sure am not gonna buy there moniters if i jsut bought a 58xx card ether. I am currently on a 4890 waiting for the new nvidia toys to come out :).
by: Anonymous on 12/15/2009
Ibrins comment crucified the article and its poster. Its clearly a low *spin* against ATI's clear differentiator feature.
@What's That by: Sean Kalinich on 12/15/2009
Unfortunately that only comes into play if you sync the rendering with the vertical refresh of the monitor.

You can display significantly more than 60FPS on any monitor you will often get texture tearing and other artifacts but it is entirely possible to do so.

You source is also lacking verification

"This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)"


But even taken from your own quote from Wiki
"This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display."


Frame rate and refresh are distinct and separate. They are not the same and the refresh is not the "limit" of the FPS. again it is only a limit if you enable V-sync in the game. That is why that option is there.

You are quite capable of rendering over 200 FPS on an LCD monitor or CRT.

The reason for a refresh rate at all is to sync a display with the frequency of the current running as well as surrounding lights. In the US this number is 60Hz in most of the rest of the world this number is 50Hz. that is why in the US all of the LCD refresh rates are in multiples of 60 (120, 240 ext) in outside the use they are in multiples of 50 (100, 200 etc) it has nothing to do with frames per second which are drawn by the GPU and pushed to the display (unless you force the GPU to sync with the refresh rate).
Finally... by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/15/2009
Thank you Ibrin!
WSGF Founder by: Ibrin on 12/15/2009
It appears that the author had his mind made up before he wrote the article. Also, I'd like to know who "Bobby P." is, and see his "veteran gamer" credentials. I think the article would have been much better had the author elicited the view of someone who supported the technology (fair an balanced, eh?). And found someone who had actual experience with the product.

I am the Founder of the Widescreen Gaming Forum, and have considerable experience with both the Matrox TripleHead2Go and ATI EyeFinity. So, let's pick apart these claims one by one.

* Three screens do not cost over $1000. Dell and HP both have 22" - 23" offerings in the $150 - $250 range. That puts us at $450 - $750. A far cry from your $1000, and far less than the 52" (low res) TV you reference.
* With regards to less FPS, I'm not sure what you're playing but what benchmarks have you seen or put together? I tested a both Half Life 2 and Far Cry 2 in EyeFinity at 3x1920x1200 at max settings and 4xAA. HL2 Ep2 hits 60fps, and Lost Coast hits about 120fps. Far Cry 2 hits 30fps+. Turn down the quality and the AA and you can get 60fps. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WSGF_Benchmarking
* No one is playing on six screens. ATI hasn't released the EyeFinity6 card. Most people wouldn't anyway, due to the horizontal bezels in the middle of your FOV. When I had 3x22" I calculated the full diagonal to be 60", which is larger than your 52". I haven't measured by 24's, but at 10% larger monitor the estimated 66" diagonal dwarfs your 52" TV and provides 3.3x the resolution.
* Unless you've played on three screens, and seen how the bezels "disappear" when you get into the game, then I don't see how you can pass judgement (you never indicate you've actually used it). And, at 22" and 24" monitors, the bezels are at or near beginning of your peripheral vision and "fade away." We took a poll on the WSGF of TripleHead users a few years ago, and this was the overwhelming response. Again, the horizontal bezel in six monitors would aggravate, but no one has that setup yet.
* When you go to a LAN (which I agree is a dying breed) you don't have to take all three monitors. Leave two at home. They won't come looking for you.
* If you don't think that the extra immersive FOV is beneficial (even for simple enjoyment) in an FPS, then that is your preference. But many other gamers feel differently. You do reference the benefit to sim gamers. But, you fail to mention the benefit to RPG and MMO players. The ability to keep your maps, quest logs, inventory, etc. on the periphery, where you can easily view the information (without having to reach for the right keyboard command) without it obstructing your view is invaluable. Here are some examples of WS vs. TH/EF gameplay - http://www.youtube.com/wsgf

Again, the article itself should have had the counterpoint (and not relegate it to the comments), but I think it's obvious that Bobby P. is either biased and/or has no real world experience with multi-monitor gaming.

-Ibrin
Founder WSGF
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com
by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/14/2009
Out of context? No we didn't! You tried to build up your argument by using facts that contradict themselves, or are false.

You said you would prefer a larger, 52" display instead of 3 smaller monitors. Why? Does it have a bigger resolution? NO! It's the same as a regular monitor. So what's the advantage? NONE

You said a 3 monitor setup is hard to carry around when you're going to a LAN party. True, but who the hell said you need to take all of them? You can just take one. Also, if easy transportation is an issue to you, why would you prefer a 52" display? I can't see how you ca log that around at a LAN party...

Oh, and you made tests? Give us the FACTS, how much of a performance hit? You would expect it when you triple the resolution, but the FPS score won't just divide itself by 3. Guru3D got around 40FPS with 5760x1200, which is definitely playable. With 22" monitors I'm sure you would hit the 60FPS barrier.

OK, I agree not everyone is ready to spend even a few hundred $ on a multi-monitor setup, but then again most technologies are like that. Just like not everyone is going to buy a 400$ 5870card.

If you don't think a multi-monitor setup will help you in a 1st person shooter, that's your opinion and I can only respect it.
I for one think it gives you a real advantage by being able to see the game surroundings better. You see, there's a little thing called peripheral vision. Even when you concentrate on your monitor while playing a game, you still notice your 2 speakers by each side of the monitor (if you have them like this). With 2 displays instead of those speakers, you could easily notice an enemy or point of interest when playing.

P.S. Funny how an ATi fan says Eyefinity is useless, while an nVidia fan (me) thinks it's great. :)
I am bobby P by: OmegaC on 12/14/2009
K. First off alot of you are taking what i said outta context. I was just stating my opions on the fact. I First off am not a Nvidia Fanboy i have always had a ATI card for the longest time. I have a Owned a few 48xx cards and also use a 5850 at this current time. Also for a second fact Lan partys are still big atleast over here on the east coast atleast one big one a month. Also i never said i gamed on a 52in,I currently game on a 25.5in Asus Moniter. And one last thing i have tried and benchmarked and looked at the diff with running 2 or 3 moniters you do take a fps hit. But not everyone is going to shell out a few hundred $$$ on Moniters.Sure if i played flight sims sure if i play driving games maybe but for FPS games no way in hell. Then you have to look at the fact he asked a gamer for there input on it. I for one work with it alot at work. and its great. But when it comes down to gaming i dont think its worth it at all.
Burly Brawl by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/14/2009
Good sarcasm, but you forgot to think for a minute...

I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but a larger screen with the same resolution will never be better because you don't get any extra image or information. It's just bigger. If you're sitting a few feet from it you get the same exact experience as with a normal monitor.

I can see now that people just don't seem to understand how a multi-monitor setup works. Your field of view isn't just stretched onto all the monitors, it's EXPANDED.

So with a 3 monitor setup, you'll see the normal image on the main screen, and side-views on the other two screens. This way you don't have to constantly move your mouse left and right to check the surroundings.
And the monitor bezel (NOT "bevel") isn't that annoying because it's not your main focus. You only look at it when you notice an enemy coming from the side, then you quickly have to turn towards him and your focus immediately shifts back to the main screen.

Like it or not, the LCD industry will develop monitors without bezels on a mass scale (LG already has a TV in production) much faster than they can build large 100+" panels with 20k resolution.
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
It's obvious that Bobby prefers gaming on low resolution. His puny little 52" is no match for my three 22" setup.

24 inches and up are a tad expensive, but 22" was cheap enough for me to invest in them and the performance is quite nice.
it's a gimmick by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
I myself game on a 42" screen, which beats the stuffings out of a bunch of smaller screens with bevels and gaps.

....Unless you just happens to love ugly bevels and gaps stuck in your FOV during a firefight [/sarcasm]
What's that? by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/14/2009
For the "hardcore gamer" who can see the difference between 60 and 100, and the guy who thinks the GPU is responsible for FPS, get ready for a quick monitor lesson.

True, refresh rate is NOT the same thing as frame rate, but weather it's the refresh rate of a CRT or that of an LCD (which represent different things btw), they both govern precisely the number of frames per second you see! Hz is the unit for frequency, which means how many times something happens in 1 second. What do you think this is: "the frequency of a new frame is 60Hz"? It means 60 new frames in 1 second, or 60FPS!

Ask yourself this: why does nVidia 3D vision require a 120Hz LCD? Answer: because you need 60FPS for each of your eyes for a smooth gaming experience.
Oh and yes "guy who thinks the GPU is responsible for FPS", there are 120Hz panels out there. Like 2 or 3 monitors and a bunch of high-end TV sets. Why do you think I said 99.99%?


Need further proof? Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

Quote1: The refresh rate is the number of times in a second that display hardware draws the data. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

To put it simple, if your video card sends less FPS than the monitor is set to "draw", in this case 60, some frames will be repeated. If it sends more than 60, not all frames will be drawn because the monitor can only display 60 different frames in a second.


Quote3 (CRT): In a CRT, the scan rate is controlled by the vertical blanking signal generated by the video controller, ordering the monitor to position the beam at the upper left corner of the raster, ready to paint another frame.

If the beam is set to "paint" another frame only 60 times a second, you only get 60FPS.


Quote3 (LCD): Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to the liquid crystal portion of an LCD monitor. However they also have a refresh rate that governs how often a new image is received from the video card (often at 60 Hz).

As I've said, the refresh rate is different in the case of LCD, but it still gives you the number of frames per second that you ultimatelly see.


P.S. Next time, if you have something to say, use your name or at least a nickname so we know who's talking to who.
Booby S?? by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Yeah that's great, but if you asked Bobby T or Bobby M they'd probably give you a different answer... So you could write a whole new article, base if off Bobby T or Bobby M, and have a completely different result. You base an article off the comments of ONE person sucking nv's dick, just like this entire site likes to do? (providing there even is a living breathing Booby S, and not just another figmant of your imagination)....
I use Eyefinity by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
And I love it.
With an overclocked 5850 at 1000/1300 it is enough to power Dirt 2 at 5760x1080 with 4xMSAA with an average FPS of 45.6 and a MIN of 37.6.

This does not really impact game performance and if it did, I could always go to 2xMSAA.

Also playing WoW and Dragon Age in super-widescreen is amazing. Once great support and bezel management comes into play Eyefinity is going to be great.

Drawbacks now are: Limited game support, usually a patch will fix this to proper aspect ratio IE Dragonage, or NFS:Shift if I remember correctly.

Hope you all find this helpful.

Also as a rebuttal my eyefinity setup cost me only $450 dollars for the monitors. It really is not THAT costly considering.
@RASA by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Hmmmm... Last time I checked the GPU was responsible for Frame Rate.

You comment "A "long-time overclocking enthusiast" should know more about hardware, and all "veteran gamers" out there should note that 99.99% of monitors can only display a maximum of 60FPS, so your little hunt for 100+FPS is USELESS."

Makes no sense, you are confusing refresh with frame rate. 60Hz refresh does not mean 60FPS.

Also remember there are 120 and 240Hz panels out as well.
by: Krestic on 12/14/2009
I sold my new ATI cards to buy Nvidia because of 3DVision. That can give you some different experience. I have 28' and 22' monitors in front of me. I use 22 as a primary.
Wold be a bit better if with Eyefinity side monitors could show the picture from the SIDES. From LEFT and RIGHT. And you position them accordinly. If in Race and flight sims they could be used as sidewindows. But you can't. You can only strech your front image. So it is USELESS.
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Umm...the resolution will be much greater on 6 screens together, rather than one large 52" screen.

Seems like he didn't calculate that.
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
How many people use 6 freaking screens!
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
I myself will wait until there are more gamer-friendly screens. Eyefinity is cool, for those Nasa and War movies scenes.

I myself am a gamer, a hardcore one and a fps freak too on. All on a 24' 1920 x 1080 display.

And I CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 60 AND 100.

Now, IMO. I wouldn't buy 5 more 24' for eyefinity, i've seen the reviews, sometimes it's awesome, sometimes its meh.. But it is not bad. In my case it just doesn't interest me.

PD: Please remember Lan Parties are still used, at least for low pings in FPS games.
Is Bigger Better? by: Greg442 on 12/14/2009
I agree with the previous comments about LAN parties. In 2009 WTH is a LAN party? lol. I play MMORPG's from the comfort of my lazy boy on my 19inch LCD. I like the idea of eye infinity, because it gives me choices. I can game on one monitor and surf the web on the other. I also have a 32inch LCD and a 50inch Plasma. I don't find gaming on either of those very pleasing. So I disagree with comments here that gaming on one huge monitor over eye infinity. Yes, the black bars can be annoying; hopefully thin bezel monitors will remedy some, if not all of that. I’m planning on buying a 5870/5890 solely for eye infinity, whether I use it or not… I want to have it. I’m also waiting to see what NVidia will offer with Fermi.. If it’s faster but lacks multi monitor capabilities, that would be a deal breaker for me.
Not useless, just uncommon by: Radu M. Cosma on 12/14/2009
Bobby should have thought more before sharing an opinion.

- As stated by the others, 3 monitors aren't that expensive, and you can even use 3x22" for a low budget
- If a single HD5870 ca do over 70FPS in FarCry2 2560x1600 you can bet your mouse you'll get at least 50FPS with 5760x1200. A "long-time overclocking enthusiast" should know more about hardware, and all "veteran gamers" out there should note that 99.99% of monitors can only display a maximum of 60FPS, so your little hunt for 100+FPS is USELESS.
- A single 52" display is UTTERLY useless! You can't play close to it because you would have to move your head all the time just to see where your going, and if you sit a few meters away, then what's the point, isn't it the same as having an smaller 1080p monitor and sitting close to it?
- Don't look now, but frameless displays are just around the corner
- Even though I can't see the point of a lanparty as I have 100Mbits at home, I still have to ask how are you planning to take that 52" TV to a lanparty, Bobby? Whereas if you have a 3 monitor setup, you could always take just one.
- Is it really an innovation for programmers and code monkeys (not junkies!)? I say NEY! They can do that with most video cards since Windows98. You see, Eyefinity is only needed for games, as opposed to applications that can easily spawn across multiple screens. Check this out: http://www.stefandidak.com/office/

I believe we managed to refute every single phrase from Bobby P...
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
I can say that eyefinity is a result of display screens lagging behind, sure you can get a 52" screen today but what resolution?

Until screen makers do something drastic soon or you buy industrial high res screens with 20hz update rate and a price no mortal can ever afford the highest resolution you will get is eyefinity, end of story..

there you have the answer :) Its not ATI's "fault" going for multi-monitor its the screen makers, they are the bottleneck today.
ATI might actually have provided a solution in a way, if screen makers only can figgure out how to glue several panels together with a pixelperfect line then you might get your imaginary 52" high res gaming screen ;)
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Eyefinity is good for games where peripheral vision is useful (especially FPSes - a single monitor is like running around with one of those dog-head lampshade things). Also three 22" monitors isn't that expensive, and if you're spending a lot on your graphics card anyway, three 24" monitors isn't going to break the bank - especially if you'll get five years use out of the investment. A 52" display is only 1080p, heavier than three 24" monitors, and costs a lot too!

Bobby P.
Who is he?
What does it matter
what this man has to natter?
by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
The cost of 3 monitors is not $1000, you just have to wait for a good deal online. When eyefinity was first announced I saw dell selling their 24" monitors in packs of 3 and 4 for $400 to $550. Also I dont know about anyone else, but who really goes to a lan party anymore? I think those have been mostly relegated to the past with our high speed internet. Also I would take the wider view with less fps just for the advantage of being able to see more than your opponent. I believe more is best in this case.
Even more useless than useless by: Anonymous on 12/14/2009
Being a hardcore gamer and all... Can't really see the point in >2 screens at all, one decent sized screen with high resolution capabilities for the game and another one for the useful applications such as IRC, TeamSpeak etc. has worked like a charm for a long time. Having seen the demos, it just hurts eyes to see the caps produced by screen edges (even thou they're not really caps). Another huge disadvantage is the increased need of space both on the wall and between myself and the screens. I really don't have the space, nor the need for this crap. So useless in real gaming it shouldn't have ever been done.
© 2009 - 2011 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.
© 2009 - 2013 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.