Widescreen Gaming Forum

My Requirements and where I'm coming from

Hi there. I'm new to WSGF. I'm building a new rig and am considering my graphics card options. I have never done widescreen nor surround.

I'm going to be after:
* Surround gaming using (Digitial Edition) Triple Head 2 Go (DTH2Go).
* I'm not sure whether I want Surround Normal (Eg 3 X 4:3) or Surround WIdescreen (eg 3 X 16:10).
* A quiet rig.
* A bang-for-buck Graphics card toward the top end. I might go SLI/Crossfire if need be. Budget is not really much of an issue but I will prefer bang-for-buck.
* In addition to games I will use the rig for general office work and software development.

Common requirements perhaps.

My desire for quiet seems has thrown two cards to the fore. The GTX260 and the HD4870.

The GTX260, specifically a Asus ENGTX260 896MB, has a quiet stock cooler. It is 21db and 72°C at Load. So reports, Silent PC Review.

The HD 4870 1 GB with the aftermarket cooler, Accelero Twin Turbo gets a good user review. Falcon26's Silent PC Forum Thread: Got the Twin Turbo on my 4870 1 gb ...

Idle about 44 and load about 60 at 50% fan speed. Dead silent... Even at 75% the fan is quiet. At 50% its dead silent. 55%-75% is quiet also but their is a faint whirly sound, nothing bad still quiet.

By contrast the 9800GX2 (with it's two graphics processors) doesn't have an aftermarket cooler which can fit. The GTX 280 is reported to run hot and load.

Therefore, from a quiet point of view the GTX 260 and the HD 4860 seem to be the only contenders.

However from a surround gaming point of view the HD 4870 seems to be knocked out of the race. From looking at Problem with New Wide Modes on ATI Cards the HD 4870 doesn't, at the moment, support {[24:5] -> 5,040 X 1050 = 3 x (1680 x 1050) [16:10]} in the Triple Head to Go Digital Edition.

Therefore below I'll write, primarily, of the the GTX 260.


Questions

I'm looking for evidence on the extent to which a GTX260 or HD 4870 can handle surround gaming or surround widescreen gaming with Triple Head to Go Digital Edition. Either, as a single card or in SLI/Crossfire.

Do you have a GTX260 (or HD 4870) which can handle a surround normal setup for gaming? That is, 3 monitors each with a normal aspect ratio (4:3 or 5:4), driven by TripleHeadToGO Digital Edition (DTH2Go)? Is it a single card or SLI/Crossfire?

Do you have a GTX260 (or HD 4870) which can handle a surround widescreen setup for gaming? That is, 3 monitors each with a widescreen aspect ratio (4:3 or 5:4), driven by TripleHeadToGO Digital Edition (DTH2Go)? Is it a single card or SLI/Crossfire?

Find below more context to my enquiry. I'd be happy to be corrected on any false claims or assumptions.


GTX260 Surround normal

Can a GTX260 handle a surround normal setup for gaming? That is, 3 monitors each with a normal aspect ratio (4:3 or 5:4), driven by TripleHeadToGO Digital Edition (DTH2Go)?

To answer this we could compare a GTX 260 (896MB) to a 9800GX2 (2 X 512MB). The GTX 260 is about 5% better, in the tom's hardware, Sum of FPS 1920x1200 AA Benchmarks. GTX 260 (495.20 FPS) Over 9800GX2 (468.80 FPS).

Therefore in the absence of specific Surround game GTX 260 benchmarking we could rely on Ibrin's Surround game benchmarking for the 9800GX2, Widescreen and Surround Benchmarking Suite ...

A GeForce 9800GX2 is enough to power what is out there today (well, except for Crysis) at the highest resolutions.

The significantly increased FOV in Surround Gaming has a measurable impact on fps. But, once you cross that threshold, increasing the resolution often has little impact (with a capable video card, like the 9800GX2). This should come as consolation to those considering a TH2Go setup. If your rig can push the aspect ratio, it can push the high-end pixels. We often saw games running at the same fps across 1900x480, 2400x600 and 3072x768. Only 3840x1024 has any potential to run at a lower fps.

If you wanted to hedge your bets, you could set up a TH2Go rig with 3x17" screens, each at 1024x768. Personally, with the investment of a TH2Go setup, I'd simply make sure I had the proper video card setup to run at 3840x1024.

So {16:4 -> 3072x768 = 3 X (1024 X 768) [4:3] = 2,359,296 pixels} and {15:4 -> 3840 X 1024 = 3 X (1280 x 1024) [5:4] = 3,932,160 pixels} should be handled readily by the GTX 260.


GTX260 Surround Widescreen

Can a GTX260 handle a surround widescreen setup for gaming? That is, 3 monitors each with a widescreen aspect ratio (4:3 or 5:4), driven by TripleHeadToGO Digital Edition (DTH2Go)?

{[24:5] -> 5,040 X 1050 = 3 x (1680 x 1050) [16:10] = 5,292,000 pixels} is about 30% more pixels to push than {[15:4] -> 3840 X 1024 = 3 X (1280 x 1024) [5:4] = 3,932,160 pixels}

I'm worried that going from surround normal to surround widescreen is going to push the card too far.


HD 4870, GTX 260 and Performance

If the HD 4870 could support the same resolutions as the GTX 260 in the DTH2Go then what could be said of the GTX 260, in terms of performance, could be said of the HD 4870.

The real clash today between the GeForce GTX 260 [896MB] and the Radeon HD 4870 [518 MB] ended up with no definite winner. Nvidia and ATI fans can argue all day, but there is no real way to settle it, unless of course you hand pick the benchmarks to your preference. Where the Radeon HD 4870 falls down a bit is on its idle power consumption and operating temperature levels, though the most hardcore enthusiasts will find this a non-issue when installing a relatively cheap aftermarket cooler.

http://www.techspot.com/review/109-geforce-gtx-260-280-versus-radeon-4850-4870/page11.html

In terms of image quality, overall features, performance, and even price, the Radeon HD 4870 1GB and the GeForce GTX 260 "Reloaded" [stream processor count from 192 to 216, amongst other things] are practically interchangeable

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15651/12

Well, if you want the best cards but also peace and quiet; you will either have to manually decrease the fan speeds (which will make the cards run hotter = bad), get a third party heatsink and fan solution, or just watercool your cards.

I'm considering the watercooling solution when I upgrade to GTX 280s once they get inexpensive enough.

Check these surround vs. standard performance comparisons if your want to actually see some numbers.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/videos/dmc4-surround-comp.php
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/videos/css-surround-comp.php
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/videos/wic-surround-comp.php

_________________
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 3.5GB | 3 X LG Flatron 24EA53VQ in Nvidia Surround | Optoma HD20

MobsterOO7 thanks very much for the links to your videos on surround standard {3840 X 1024 [15:4/3.75] = 3 X (1280 x 1024) [5:4/1.25] } vs. standard {1280x1024 [5:4/1.25]}.

I'll take up your terminology of "standard" where I wrote "normal" in the top post.

Given that your surround standard benchmarks work reasonably with a single 8800 GT 512MB, this gives me greater confidence in the GTX 260. Your notes, in the videos, about turning off Anti Aliasing, should one need it, are useful to be reminded off.

Yes watercooling needs to be considered here. However, aircooling with an aftermarket cooler (for cards that are compatible, eg HD 4870) or some stock aircooling (as Silent PC review reports for the Asus ENGTX260 896MB) do well enough. I'd rather not bother, therefore, with the extra maintenance hassle of watercooling. But, yes, if one wants a cool and quiet GTX280 then watercooling seems to be the only option.

Edit: Sentence structure.

Your notes, in the videos, about turning off Anti Aliasing, should one need it, are useful to be reminded off.

I didn't necessarily mean turn it off altogether, just don't jack it up to x16. Depending on the game I don't have it any higher than x6. For newer games its at x2 or x4.

_________________
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 3.5GB | 3 X LG Flatron 24EA53VQ in Nvidia Surround | Optoma HD20

MobsterOO7, thanks for qualifying me on anti aliasing.

Indeed in general one will want to fiddle with the various graphics settings in any game. That is, backwards from high until one's frame rate is acceptable.

I'm running the eVGA GTX 260 at triple widescreen (5040x1050), and for the most part it runs very well. There's been some issues regarding getting games to work in DX10 at that resolution, but if I were to drop to DX9 then all is well. I can't max out everything, but most games run at high quality settings.

Some of the games I play are Half Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Warhammer Online, Oblivion, Flight Simulator 10. All of those except for FSX run at max settings. FSX runs well but at medium settings. I hear Flight Sim gives regular rigs a run for their money when you max out everything, so I'm not too surprised I can't max out things too.

i'm running a GTX260 also, the card is quiet, shoot my whole tower is quiet, can't even hear it running.. I play crysis on gamer settings, i'm not sure how many fps im getting but it's very playable besides the occasional choppy scenes in the cinematic portions, gameplay is fine. I also played COD4, Bioshock on highest settings without a problem. i think the 260 will do you fine, there are also better versons of the card, OC'd and what not that you might consider if your really worried about getting as much performance as possible.

hey wumzi that is most helpful! I happen to have a specific interest in FSX. Thanks for the info about DX10. I'm going with 32 bit XP pro, so I'll only have access to DX9 (unless mistaken). Yes, besides Crysis FS seems to be good at taxing systems.

Did you ever have triple standard (eg 3840 X 1024)? Does 5040x1050 ever seem too wide, for example, when using the rig for general/office work? Are you tempted to go SLI?

DigChaos, thanking you! Really good to have confirmation from a second real world user at 5040x1050 on the 260.

i think the 260 will do you fine, there are also better versons of the card, OC'd and what not that you might consider if your really worried about getting as much performance as possible.

Yes, for example, I assume the Asus ENGTX260 896MB (I'm not assuming you necessarily have this card) is the 192 rather than 216 Core.

Edit: Good to know you have a quiet rig!

hey wumzi that is most helpful! I happen to have a specific interest in FSX. Thanks for the info about DX10. I'm going with 32 bit XP pro, so I'll only have access to DX9 (unless mistaken). Yes, besides Crysis FS seems to be good at taxing systems.

Did you ever have triple standard (eg 3840 X 1024)? Does 5040x1050 ever seem too wide, for example, when using the rig for general/office work? Are you tempted to go SLI?

I never went to triple standard. I jumped from a single 22" widescreen on my old PC to triple widescreen on the new PC. If I'm not gaming on all 3 screens, then yes, at times it does feel too wide. I literally have to turn my head left and right to see things. For example if someone logs on Messenger, the pop up shows up all the way in the bottom right corner. I used to be able to just glance at that corner with one screen, now I have to turn and look at it. But it just takes some getting used to. I can have a movie playing on one screen, internet on one, and work stuff on the other, and that's worth it I think. Plus the immersion you get in games is amazing.

Since you mentioned your OS, I highly suggest you switch to 64 bit instead of 32. There are hardly any driver conflicts with 64 bit these days, so you might as well go for it in case you ever decide to go past 4 gigs of RAM. I'm running 64 bit Vista and haven't had any problems whatsoever. At 32 bits you'll forever be stuck at 4 gigs. And that's including video ram. So if you stick in 4 gigs of ram and a 1 gig video card, it'll show you as having only 3 gigs of ram.

And regarding Flight Sim. I actually CAN max out everything, but my framerate drops to 10-15. It's playable, and it looks great, but I'd rather have a smoother framerate. Which is why I dropped the settings to something a bit lower. I ended up with something that still looks good and yet runs at 30 FPS. I think if I made the jump to a GTX 280 then it'll probably run fine.

Plus if ever I run into a game that can't do 5040x1050 (Bioshock comes to mind, currently maxes out at triple standard instead of triple widescreen), then I can hit a hotkey and the side monitors shut off, leaving me with the usual single widescreen 1680x1050. That's what I do for Crysis, which runs at 5 FPS at 5040x1050, or close to 30 FPS at 1680x1050 (at very high settings). I chose the latter.

SLI is not an option for me at the moment since my motherboard doesn't support it. I considered it, but I didn't think the gains were worth it. A single card is handling things just fine, and when the time comes that it's no longer keeping up, I'll get the next generation.

EDIT: Oh, I should probably mention I'm running the eVGA GTX 260 Core 216