Triple Monitor Gaming: GeForce GTX 590 vs. Radeon HD 6990

By on May 3, 2011, 4:31 AM

With the release of the dual-GPU AMD Radeon HD 6990, closely followed by the competing Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 we saw graphics card performance reach new heights. With bandwidth throughput in excess of 300GB/s, these cards can consume more power than entire computer systems. Moreover, the two GPUs on board of either product are so complex that combined make up for 11,000 million transistors.

By utilizing three monitors games can become roughly 3x more demanding as the graphics card is required to render an overwhelmingly higher number of pixels. Whereas we commonly test graphics cards at single monitor resolutions of 1680x1050 (22”), 1920x1200 (24”) and 2560x1600 (30”), today we are taking these and adding two more LCD monitors for effective resolutions of 5040x1050, 5760x1200 and 7680x1600.

Read the complete article.




User Comments: 108

Got something to say? Post a comment
T77 T77 said:

Nice review, keep up the good work.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Very good! I don't think I'll ever want to game with that kind of setup but definately an interesting read

Leeky Leeky said:

I'd love to game with three displays, but the cost is offputting right now.

Seeing those 3 30" displays makes me so jealous though!!

Be interesting to see the effects of SLI/CF GPUs though.

Jurassic4096 said:

Bezels + peripheral screen stretching + the performance hit = no thanks. I love my two HD 6950's, and i could easily pick up two more Samsung BX2431's, but i'm not impressed. Multi-monitor gaming is still early and it will get better... i will wait til then.

Guest said:

11 billion, not million transistors.

g4mer said:

3 monitors is just overkill. Everything you need is displayed in the middle one. Good review by the way.

Punkid said:

heres a question : can u run the three monitors in portrait mode? for a resolution of 4800*2560 with 3 2560x1600 screens?

oh and i wouldnt ever bother with 3 monitors....i'd rather invest in a projector and let the game envelope me

mosu said:

It's a review that I like, only a small correction: most games Radeon cards are better, not equal to GeForce cards.Please correct your conclusion.As resolution grows GeForce cards lose more ground so the crown certainly goes to Radeon 6990 card.

PinothyJ said:

Yeah, you have to rename the Crysis 2 executable to FEAR.exe in order to get decent crossfire performance from it. Oh, and don't forget to change the autolauncher's ini file as well otherwise when you try to update it won't work .

Ahh bugs...

PinothyJ said:

Punkid said:

heres a question : can u run the three monitors in portrait mode? for a resolution of 4800*2560 with 3 2560x1600 screens?

oh and i wouldnt ever bother with 3 monitors....i'd rather invest in a projector and let the game envelope me

What about the middle in portrait and the outer two in landscape? I have always wondered whether or not this would actually work for some games rather than the long band of peripheral vision that is the standard alternative.

Hmmmm...

Superpeter Superpeter said:

I was happy to see this article although it puts 3 monitor gaming in an unfavorable light... Almost as if the writer is intimidated by the setup and it looked like the fear spread to the first few posts. First off, I have 3 Hanns-G 27in monitors that cost 300$ a piece(shipping included), a 6870 cost me 200$ and a rebate, A Ph2x6 (200$), an ASUS C.A. IV mob0 (200).. that's what... 1500$ so far? The cost has been extremely exaggerated by the writer(although im sure you can find a way to make it cost 5000$). I don't have a lot of money or "deep pockets"...Matter of fact, @this exact moment i don't have a dollar in my account. But if i manage my money i can have 300$ here and there to spend on what i want, or justify that i need just like most of the people that read this site are can also. If not, maybe "high-power" computing/gaming isn't the thing you need to be thinking about. The major points for me are: for computing, its like having multiple books open when your studying, your productivity and comprehension go up so dramatically that you wonder how come you haven't been doing this all along. And with gaming, Seeing something/absorbing information in your peripheral s as heart pumping and surreal as it is in real life, it really feels like your doing more. Triple monitor gaming/computing REALLY needs to be experienced. Don't let an intimidated opinion scare you off, hold you back, or give you more excuses.

herpaderp said:

Superpeter said:

I was happy to see this article although it puts 3 monitor gaming in an unfavorable light... Almost as if the writer is intimidated by the setup and it looked like the fear spread to the first few posts. First off, I have 3 Hanns-G 27in monitors that cost 300$ a piece(shipping included).......Don't let an intimidated opinion scare you off, hold you back, or give you more excuses.

That's nice, but 27" isn't the same as 30". It's not the size difference that sets them apart, it's the huge 2560x1600 resolution, which is nearly double the pixel count of a 1920x1080 panel. Most 30" monitors use higher quality IPS screens as opposed to traditional TFT screens, and cost upwards of $900, so even if you only spend about $2700 for the monitors, that's still a hell of a lot money for just 3 components. You could put together 2 amazing builds for that much money.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

@Superpeter: While your opinion is fine and dandy (and I agree with the later half of your post to a degree), the whole point of the review was to put the two most powerful consumer level single PCB graphics cards to the test in triple monitor configurations to the test. It, in no way is geared for general productivity, as you would NOT need by any stretch of the imagination need the 590 or the 6990 for general producitivity. If anything, it puts the graphics cards in unfavorable light rather than the concept of a multi display set up, as they are the biggest and baddest and yet they struggle (albeit at the higher/highest settings) to play games at these advertised but otherwise monstrous resolutions.

For normal computing tasks, two monitors tend to be the sweet spot, not 3+. While your multiple books example makes sense, we are not multi tasking individuals when it comes to say, reading comprehension. You cannot reasonably have one eye on one book, one eye on another, and read/comprehend both, you have to switch back and forth between books. This is true with multiple screen layouts, we are still paying attention to one window/display at a time, but the extra real estate works best when we aren't covering one window over another, allowing that peripheral vision to kick in when say, you have something that gives a visual cue when something changes, or in your programming example, allows you to have all your palettes open and still have an acceptable space to code in. However, there is a limit to this, particularly when your eyes begin to hunt for windows or update notifications, and you start becoming engrossed in the space you are not using or with too much going on hit the limit for information overload.

After all this TL;DR I'll say this in response, I've used 2/3/4/5/6 monitor setups in productivity scenarios, and 3 was the absolute limit for me when using multiple non-full display windows (IE, not tiling on each individual display or across all displays). Two definitely was simpler for me to use and I (and others who tried a similar set of monitors) felt I was much more productive on two than three, though both were MUCH MUCH better than a single display.

Superpeter Superpeter said:

herpaderp said:

That's nice, but 27" isn't the same as 30". It's not the size difference that sets them apart, it's the huge 2560x1600 resolution, and cost upwards of $900

80+ inches of viewing space with 5760x1200 pixels in HD shipped to my front door for the 900$ price of one of your supposed monitor seems more than "Nice". Sounds like the intelligent alternative.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

IPS panels, which usually cost at a significant premium over standard TN panels offer much better color reproduction, higher color depth, often better gamut ranges, usually better absolute blacks and gradient grays (CFL ftw in that respect), and mimumum color/contrast phasing when viewed at an angle. They are generally the CHOICE monitor tech for anyone involving in design, and absolute resolution with these kind of monitors is prized moreso than total resolution in mutiple monitor setups.

However they aren't that great for gaming since their response times are not nearly as fast as TN monitors, so I'd be questioning why someone would be getting three+ of the 5ms monster size IPS panels for the sake of gaming...

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Great review Steve, I was just about to ask you when you were going to get on this after seeing your 3 x 30" dells.

I have a suggestion for you. Try running the same setup with triple or quad CF/SLI and check out the CPU scaling when you go above the 3.7 Ghz mark I have found that the 'resolution bound' bottleneck is removed.

For normal computing tasks, two monitors tend to be the sweet spot, not 3+. While your multiple books example makes sense, we are not multi tasking individuals when it comes to say, reading comprehension. You cannot reasonably have one eye on one book, one eye on another, and read/comprehend both, you have to switch back and forth between books. This is true with multiple screen layouts, we are still paying attention to one window/display at a time, but the extra real estate works best when we aren't covering one window over another,

I disagree with that assessment. I just setup a 3 x 1 Lanscape on 3 x 25" monitors and its the greatest thing since sliced bread for AV editing and PSE...etc. Not having to switch back and forth and having full view of all of the material being edited is fantastic.

heres a question : can u run the three monitors in portrait mode? for a resolution of 4800*2560 with 3 2560x1600 screens?

Yes you can. Here are the available layouts Punk.

[link]

However they aren't that great for gaming since their response times are not nearly as fast as TN monitors, so I'd be questioning why someone would be getting three+ of the 5ms monster size IPS panels for the sake of gaming...

?? 5ms is well fast enough

Superpeter Superpeter said:

@madboyv1: i agree with you in that i believe i viewed the article in the wrong light, Is was to showcase the graphics cards, not necessarily the monitor setup. I wanted to strongly express that it doesn't have to cost a person as much as the writer explains to get an amazing experience out of a setup close in size to this one.

Also @madboyv1: That's cool that 2 monitor computing is for you. I had two monitors for a while until I saved up for my third. I liked it WAY more than one. 2 screens made me wonder if i was going overboard with three but it always felt like something was wrong, like my shoes were on the wrong feet or something... I had them side by side in landscape mode, Maybe if i had them arranged differently i may have stayed with 2monitors, but three is the magic for me.

Guest said:

Its was listed correctly in the article. 11,000 million is 11 billion.

Leeky Leeky said:

I disagree with that assessment. I just setup a 3 x 1 Lanscape on 3 x 25" monitors and its the greatest thing since sliced bread for AV editing and PSE...etc. Not having to switch back and forth and having full view of all of the material being edited is fantastic

Hey Red

I have to say I agree there. Having used 2 displays for some time (and now being stuck with one til my motherboard arrives!) I've got a new found respect for just how much more efficient having more than one is!

I've always wanted 3, and its possible one day I will (having to replace whole PC no doubt will delay it now) and I can't wait, because the amount of desktop real estate it will give me for other tasks is what I want it for most.

It makes working on big documents or images so much easier when you can give one program one whole display, and another to another one. To have an extra screen would make it even more awesome!

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

@Superpeter: With a custom or ultra thin bezel, 3 in portrait would probably be magic for me as well, but for now I'll stick with my two, probably wait for marginal price/tech improvements in display technology before trying again.

@red1776: I meant to more or less address your disagreement retroactively twice, once right after the quoted text, and once in the "paragraph" after that. It may not have been read that way however:

"...or in your programming example, allows you to have all your palettes open and still have an acceptable space to code in." - This applies to your usage.

"...3 was the absolute limit for me when using multiple non-full display windows (IE, not tiling on each individual display or across all displays)." - this is the contrapositive to your usage.

It all depends on how someone wants to use thier screen If you're full screening everything having more than one monitor ends up being pointless. if you tend to have a considerable number of docklets/applets and individual windows, you can end up running into imformation overload very quickly after 2 monitors worth of screen space. Three and more, in my opinnion is best used as you described, but ultimately less useful if you're not using that space actively, which becomes increasingly difficult depending on what you're trying to do.

Superpeter Superpeter said:

@madvoy: what i do @ my home to help compensate for bezels in my viewing area is I have the monitors that are to the left and right of the center; their bezels are directly BEHIND the middle monitor so i only see the with of one bezel between screens. I never understood why in all the pictures and reviews i see the monitors are always put edge to edge. Stacking the bezels is infinitely more pleasing (to me) unless you like the double bezels in your picture

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Hey Red

I have to say I agree there. Having used 2 displays for some time (and now being stuck with one til my motherboard arrives!) I've got a new found respect for just how much more efficient having more than one is!

I've always wanted 3, and its possible one day I will (having to replace whole PC no doubt will delay it now) and I can't wait, because the amount of desktop real estate it will give me for other tasks is what I want it for most.

It makes working on big documents or images so much easier when you can give one program one whole display, and another to another one. To have an extra screen would make it even more awesome!

Hi Leek,

This is why I like this setup so much. i do a lot of A/V editing and PSE/Adobe InDesign/Creative Suite stuff.

[link]

Luay said:

For the first time, 5760x1200 is playable with the newest games at 60 fps by the HD6990 CF and GTX590 SLI. The power is there now but the 40nm chips are primitive, hot, loud and power consuming. I think something in the line of a HD7950 Cf and a 650W PSU on an i5 2500k would be perfect come this Christmas. Not too far off. So far, the Asus Pro Art 1920x1200 IPS display is the definite piece of this build.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Superpeter said:

@madvoy: what i do @ my home to help compensate for bezels in my viewing area is I have the monitors that are to the left and right of the center; their bezels are directly BEHIND the middle monitor so i only see the with of one bezel between screens. I never understood why in all the pictures and reviews i see the monitors are always put edge to edge. Stacking the bezels is infinitely more pleasing (to me) unless you like the double bezels in your picture

Yeah I've thought of that too, but when you have half an inch to almost a full inch of bezel with even one, it's annoying. When I actually have my two screens "edge to edge" I do what you do with the overlapping. =)

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

For the first time, 5760x1200 is playable with the newest games at 60 fps by the HD6990 CF and GTX590 SLI. The power is there now but the 40nm chips are primitive, hot, loud and power consuming. I think something in the line of a HD7950 Cf and a 650W PSU on an i5 2500k would be perfect come this Christmas. Not too far off. So far, the Asus Pro Art 1920x1200 IPS display is the definite piece of this build.

By your own logic you wont...or ever should build system.

The power is there now but the 40nm chips are primitive, hot, loud and power consuming.

Huh? the 40nm Gpu is what is current technology, how is it primitive? by that logic the 28nm will be primitive as soon as they exist.

As far as the 'hot and loud' aspect, current materials (the same materials that will be used for the 28nm chips) have been found to run acceptably up to a 100c. thermal limit. the next gens clocks will be pushed to that limit the same as the previous generations for performance sake. and unless there is a break-through in fan blade design, they are not getting any cooler or quieter. If you think that your mythical 7950 is going to run at 40c....its not going to happen.

From Guru3D;

GTX 280 load:

Full 3D performance mode: varies - worst case TDP 236W @ 85c

GTX 580 load:

Subjective obtained GPU power consumption = TDP 280 Watts @ 87c

There is a fighting chance that the next offerings from red and green will be more power hungry and warmer still. Not to mention that the latest generation of GpU's are the first to run roughshod over the PCI-SIG's 300w limit.

if you are awaiting the '7000/600' series to be a stone cold, mute, run on cooking grease eco friendly affair...you are going to be disappointed there Luay

Leeky Leeky said:

Hi Leek,

This is why I like this setup so much. i do a lot of A/V editing and PSE/Adobe InDesign/Creative Suite stuff.

[link]

Erm, how cool is that!

Not sure what I'm looking at, but it looks right at home across those screens. I like it mainly because I usually have 2 programs I'm using at the same time, and it makes life so much easier when I can have one filling one screen, and the other the other one. 3 would be so much nicer though!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Erm, how cool is that!

Not sure what I'm looking at, but it looks right at home across those screens. I like it mainly because I usually have 2 programs I'm using at the same time, and it makes life so much easier when I can have one filling one screen, and the other the other one. 3 would be so much nicer though!

Its AVS editor and all of those boxes are where you drop media. across three screens you can work on a very long film/production with out scrolling or toggling back and forth and have the hole project in front of you. it's great when you are working in PS/E as well. you have all of your photos/Layers visible at the same time.

if you work with this type of software, having all this screen-estate is wonderful.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

red1776 said:

If you work with this type of software, having all this screen-estate is wonderful.

Photoshop CS3, Audition CS3, and Premier Pro CS3 all at once on three screens = amazing. Too bad I don't do that kind of stuff much anymore. A friend of mine does this; has Premier Pro on the left, Photshop on the right, and Audition above both (triangle setup) and he swears by it. If he's not using all three he either throws up on the top screen an explorer window, Itunes or basically forgets about it, using only the bottom two screens. =/

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Photoshop CS3, Audition CS3, and Premier Pro CS3 all at once on three screens = amazing. Too bad I don't do that kind of stuff much anymore. A friend of mine does this; has Premier Pro on the left, Photshop on the right, and Audition above both (triangle setup) and he swears by it. If he's not using all three he either throws up on the top screen an explorer window, Itunes or basically forgets about it, using only the bottom two screens. =/

That I agree with. I have a 4th identicle monitor here, I am fighting the urge to throw it in there, or change to a 4x1 portrait setup. I also thought the bezels would bother me ...a lot, but they don't, not even for gaming.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Go for the portrait setup, you know you want to~

=p

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Go for the portrait setup, you know you want to~

=p

:p, yeah...I know I will talk myself into it anyway....wheres that screwdriver!

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Nice article.

Unfortunately, the two protagonists are fast heading towards extinction.

A quick look at Neweggs listings:

GTX 590

EVGA -out of stock

Asus - Deactivated

HD 6990

MSI -in stock

XFX -out of stock

HIS -Deactivated

PowerColor - Deactivated

Sapphire -Deactivated

Gigabyte -Deactivated

Diamond -Deactivated

VisionTek -Deactivated

Asus -Never in stock at Newegg.

Bring on the GTX580 SLI/HD 6970 CFX Lightning multi-screen review (should we start up a petition to MSI for review samples? :nudge::nudge::wink::wink:

TrekExpert TrekExpert said:

Could I expect similar results from two 6970's in crossfire to the 6990 in these tests?

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Nice article.

Unfortunately, the two protagonists are fast heading towards extinction.

Now there's a shock!. The bin (as expected) was rather shallow.

Could I expect similar results from two 6970's in crossfire to the 6990 in these tests?

you should expect an 6-10% in performance over the 6990.

Leeky Leeky said:

Now there's a shock!. The bin (as expected) was rather shallow.

you should expect an 6-10% in performance over the 6990.

They're cheaper than one HD6990 as well aren't they?

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

They're cheaper than one HD6990 as well aren't they?
yep, about $70-100 less to pair them up.....but then you don't get the lesser performance...

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Same deal with the GTX590...although the performance difference is more marked since the 590 is heavily underclocked.

It would also seem that choice of test system (and CPU clockspeed) has a part to play at higher resolutions also.

From [H]OCP's 3-way SLI/CFX Eyefinity/Surround follow-up review. This is by far the greatest deviation between results, but the whole series of benches is worth noting.

[link]

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Same deal with the GTX590...although the performance difference is more marked since the 590 is heavily underclocked.

It would also seem that choice of test system (and CPU clockspeed) has a part to play at higher resolutions also.

From [H]OCP's 3-way SLI/CFX Eyefinity/Surround follow-up review. This is by far the greatest deviation between results, but the whole series of benches is worth noting.

[link]

I commented to Steve earlier to try this again and crank up the CPU to above the Usual 'end of the trail OC (3.6-3.8) because since I have been building and benching multi-monitor,multi-GPU systems, I have seen that the standard results go right out the window. The dynamics of the relationships between subsystems completely changes.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Bezels + peripheral screen stretching + the performance hit = no thanks. I love my two HD 6950's, and i could easily pick up two more Samsung BX2431's, but i'm not impressed. Multi-monitor gaming is still early and it will get better... i will wait til then.

I agree.

I was happy to see this article although it puts 3 monitor gaming in an unfavorable light... Almost as if the writer is intimidated by the setup and it looked like the fear spread to the first few posts. First off, I have 3 Hanns-G 27in monitors that cost 300$ a piece(shipping included), a 6870 cost me 200$ and a rebate, A Ph2x6 (200$), an ASUS C.A. IV mob0 (200).. that's what... 1500$ so far? The cost has been extremely exaggerated by the writer(although im sure you can find a way to make it cost 5000$).

Don't take my findings personally, I really don't like dual or triple monitor setups "for gaming", does nothing for me as I am only focused on the center screen, don't have time for sightseeing when fragging.

Still your post made me chuckle a little "intimidated by the setup", I like that. Now I know why I have been sitting at my desk each day trembling for the past 5 years.

While I am sure the 3 Hanns-G 27" does a nice job in my opinion it doesn't hold a candle to the Dell 3008WFP monitors. You get what you pay for and while the 3008WFP's could easily be considered overpriced they are an amazing monitor to look at. However that aside the key here is the 2560x1600 resolution. I would much rather have a single 30" (2560x1600) for gaming than three 27" monitors and for the price of the 27s you could probably get a discounted 30.

So I am not intimidated by the setup as much as I find it mandatory for going triple. My point was I wouldn't bother with multiple smaller monitors until I had a 30". That said I can understand that some love the experience even with 22s but I just don't see it.

That being the case there is nothing exaggerated about the price at all.

On another note how the hell does a single 6870 handle 5760x1200? Do you just use medium/low settings?

IPS panels, which usually cost at a significant premium over standard TN panels offer much better color reproduction, higher color depth, often better gamut ranges, usually better absolute blacks and gradient grays (CFL ftw in that respect), and mimumum color/contrast phasing when viewed at an angle. They are generally the CHOICE monitor tech for anyone involving in design, and absolute resolution with these kind of monitors is prized moreso than total resolution in mutiple monitor setups.

However they aren't that great for gaming since their response times are not nearly as fast as TN monitors, so I'd be questioning why someone would be getting three+ of the 5ms monster size IPS panels for the sake of gaming...

Never had a problem gaming on these LCD's, in fact games are incredible on them. As far as I can tell they have no weakness other than the price.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Still your post made me chuckle a little "intimidated by the setup", I like that. Now I know why I have been sitting at my desk each day trembling for the past 5 years.

I hope I don't run into your setup in a well lit alley!

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I hope I don't run into your setup in a well lit alley!

When three 30s are turned on any alley is well lit, its when they go into stanby mode that you will be in trouble.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

When three 30s are turned on any alley is well lit, its when they go into stanby mode that you will be in trouble.

Stop it!...your making me ascared!

I bet thats true. My three 25"s at 300 cd/m2 are a bit overwhelming on a white site. I bet you get a sunburn when those things go white.

Leeky Leeky said:

Feels as small as his single 18.4" laptop display.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Feels as small as his single 18.4" laptop display.

I'm not so sure a big new monitor is such a good investment for you Leek:

Leeky Leeky said:

What can I say!

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Steve said:

Never had a problem gaming on these LCD's, in fact games are incredible on them. As far as I can tell they have no weakness other than the price.

I guess it's not so bad if the panels are new enough to have the overdrive feature, but I've seen high fps shooters "lag" on 8ms IPS panels without overdrive and some of the cheaper (sub $300 is slowly becoming popular for smaller size screens) ones artifact moreso during an overdriven frame than the $500-$600+ panels. The reason why I say 8ms and not the 5ms you usually find on the top of the line models is because of that price: people who want an IPS panel for general use tend to go on the cheaper side, so they sacrifice some performance here and there for that lower price. On the super nice Dell/Apple/HP 27/30s this doesn't tend to be a problem as much, but of course you're also paying $900-$1300.

Just an observation considering the general population of IPS panels. If I could afford it I'd love to get a Dell U2711, but that's besides the point. =)

Guest said:

Great review, been waiting to see how those two cards would go against each other at those resolutions, had a feeling Green wouldn't do so well at the higher settings. I have been using 3x22" for about 8 months and love it. Games run smooth and other than metro 2033 can run everything maxed with 2 GTX 460 1GB @ 5760x1080. I think this is a taste thing, some like it others don't, to each their own I guess. I couldn't go back to a single monitor. I was troubled by the bezel for about a day then I just got use to it. If you really want to get dizzy load up EVE and just go outside a station and spin the view! ;)

Superpeter Superpeter said:

@Steve: "Don't take my findings personally, I really don't like dual or triple monitor setups for gaming, does nothing for me as I am only focused on the center screen, don't have time for sightseeing when fragging."

lol, we're comparing ideas on "things"/ "objects" So that we can all be informed and make better choices about our purchases in the future..not my identity. I'd have to slap my own self for taking this stuff personally,haha. Tho you seem like a cool cat for caring and bringing it up, "Much Respect". I'm also glad that you saw "intimidated by the setup" in the correct light..it was meant to make you chuckle as of course ur not intimidated by ur setup, excited if anything. But i wanted more understanding from the writer so i teased u a bit..my bad. Please don't take that personally either.

When i shoot in real life i always need to be "sightseeing"..so the "sights" don't accidentally get in the way of my bullets...FPS on the center screen only; is like trying to shoot with those horse blinders on or a helmet that doesn't let your peripheral into viewing without looking left or right. Extremely debilitating and dangerous...That's in real life.. Now in gaming if u wanna believe such a handicap is fine as long as ur used to it, then by all means, make yourself happy. But your definitely @ a disadvantage to someone with an peripheral field of view. I have a 50in Samsung plasma directly above my three 27in monitors, I game on them both depending on who's in the room and the game. Still, unanimously everyone that watches says the same thing "no-matter how big the screen is if u don't have ur peripheral..big disadvantage" (alot of my freinds are "gun nuts" that im trying to get into gaming or upgrade their computer)

@Steve said: "On another note how the hell does a single 6870 handle 5760x1200? Do you just use medium/low settings?"

Medium to high settings actually, I have an overclocking "fetish", but i haven't graduated to LN2 yet. My XFX (non black ed)6870 is clocked(without voltage increase) with AFTERBURNER 1007/1251, when gaming i go to 1025/1251,(volts added now)for benchies..1050/1251. Phenom2x6 @ 4.1. 12gb(8gb+4gb) of Gskill Ripjaws 2000 running@ 2006...Rosewill 850w PSU, Asus C.H.IV Mobo,.. Mushkin 120G SSD..the rest is unimportant....

My last 3, 3D Mark 11 scores are: 4812-4804-4804.

My last 2, 3D Mark Vantage are: 18960 & 18423 (Gpu score 18538 Cpu 20350)

I game on three 27" fine, but im okay with around or right above 30 FPS. at medium to high settings. Still..my second 6970 is in the air as we i type this and my framerates will be increased by Friday.

fpsgamerJR62 said:

@Steve - Can you rerun the benchmarks using a pair of the newer GTX 590s with 3 GB buffers versus a pair of HD 6970s with 2 GB buffers ? My impression is that with the current design of both AMD and Nvidia dual-GPU cards, we are not seeing the true performance potential of a dual GPU configuration using the current high-end parts of both companies.

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Sorry for the mistake in the earlier post. I meant GTX 580s.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.