Widescreen Gaming Forum

It seems that the GTX470 in SLI hits the sweet spot for the price/performance ratio. That will probably be my next setup.

Same here going to sell my 5870's and probably get some 470's.

gettin rid of my 5870's and picking up 480's. tired of waiting for ati to fix the eyefinitycrossfirevsync issues. Might hold on to my 5970'sas they may be usable next year

_________________
intel x79
2 way 780ti's under water
Intel 4760 extreme @ 4GHz
3 x 42 inch screens @5860x1080
16 gigs xmp ram @2200

I can only add that I installed the drivers onto my SLi280's while I wait for my last part to arrive from the states for my SLI W/C 480's, and they work fine, FPS is a little better than with the TH2GO and I am on a much higher res. I really like the bezel management and custom res setting.

Just set the res that suits, change your game res to the same and game to desk top reacts the same as the Th2go, sweeet.

I am a happy man once again and am looking forward to sli 480's......

Please Dave, or any other ATI rep, read all this: you are losing customers!

I am too getting sick of all this driver and adapter problems. Nvidia seems to have this all worked out:

- Good multi GPU scaling
- No expensive adapters (that wont work anyway)
- Nice combination with 3D (that nobody is going to use by the way)

2x GTX480 cost less than 3x HD5870 (that perform way less)

So skip forward to CCC 12.0 and be done with this!

(sits down again, and presses refresh on the download page.................)

has anyone tried tri-sli with 1x display per gpu/card??

thanks alot guys!!

Yes, its G-R-E-A-T, the FPS boost over the old matrox DE solution running 3 x GTX 480 is amazing. :cheers

I read the PCPer review, and I don't get some of his cost analysis. He adds the cost of the ActiveDP adapter to the ATI setup because he couldn't find a monitor with a DP connection in the "low-end (sub $230) 24-in 1080p panels available".

First, few 24" panels are 1080p. Most 24" panels are 1920x1200. To use 3D Surround you need a 1920x1080p 120Hz panel - not a 1920x1200 panel. So, he seems to be setting criteria that aren't reasonable and possibly unattainable.

Most 1080p panels are 22" (actually 21.5") or 23" on the diagonal. This brings the panel price down. Additionally, both Dell and HP have IPS panels in these sizes in the $289 price range.

Secondly, he seems to believe that users will spend between $600 - $900 on dual high-end GPUs from NVIDIA, but would only be looking at "low-end monitors." I would think these users would want the images they paid so much to generate to be displayed on at least a mid-range display. I believe most of these users would know the benefit of an IPS panel and be willing to spend the money on this quality panel.

Finally, in his closing thoughts he thinks that if users get the chance to experience 3D Surround, they would spend the extra $650 for the 120Hz panels and the glasses. But, earlier he fails to make any concession that users would pay an extra $150 for three IPS panels with DisplayPort connections. Most users I know would be willing to pay the small additional cost ($50/panel) for a better quality panel with more connection options.

Based on what I've read (NV didn't send me any hardware to evaluate), NVIDIA has a compelling offering. However, I feel that this review attempts to shoehorn in a price argument that adds $100 to the ATI cost.

While someone might say it's "only $100", it basically doubles the cost difference between a 5870 and GTX470 SLI, or a 5970 and GTX480 SLI. For an additional comparison it adds another 25% savings when comparing a single 5870 to GTX480 SLI.

I read the PCPer review, and I don't get some of his cost analysis. He adds the cost of the ActiveDP adapter to the ATI setup because he couldn't find a monitor with a DP connection in the "low-end (sub $230) 24-in 1080p panels available".

I have rarely seen them in that price range as well, everyone I know that is using eyefinity had to buy that adapter... they should have done like Nvidia did and made it possible to run 2 monitors on one card, and the other on the next card. This alone plus the huge performance gain will most likely make Nvidia the prefered choice when going surround. I don't know anyone that would pick ATI current offering over Nvidia's. I mean think about it any one of these cards is marketed for the core gamer anyway. Yea you can get one 5870 for $400 it will do eyefinity but not that great of performance with one card. Say someone already has 3 monitors or they can find regular 24" monitors without DP for cheaper than they can DP monitors just like the reviewer said. Now you add the $100 cost of adapter to that. Now your looking at $500 for one 5870 to work with three screens. Or you could pay an extra $100 and have two yes two GTX470's that kill 5870 crossfire performance. I think it is a no brainer. I don't see why you have such a hard time understanding the cost estimates, and why your upset when someone mentions the cost of adapters. Like I said before I already had two of my monitors, and I wanted them to match so it didn't make sense for me to sell both my monitors and buy three monitors with DP which are "more exp" just because one of the ports on my card needs to use DP. That didn't make sense. The extra $100 adapter was cheaper then buying all new monitors.

First, few 24" panels are 1080p. Most 24" panels are 1920x1200. To use 3D Surround you need a 1920x1080p 120Hz panel - not a 1920x1200 panel. So, he seems to be setting criteria that aren't reasonable and possibly unattainable. Most 1080p panels are 22" (actually 21.5") or 23" on the diagonal. This brings the panel price down. Additionally, both Dell and HP have IPS panels in these sizes in the $289 price range.

Why do you bring up the 3D monitors in this, that was for a whole different test just for Nvidia 3D. And everyone knows 1920X1080 @ 120 Hz monitor for 3D. I don't even know if they make 1200 @120 Hz displays. I am sure they used the same displays for the 2D surround though. But for them to get it to work yes they had to get an $100 adapter just like everyone I know did for eyefinity. Also there are many 24" 1080P monitors not sure what your talking about I looked on newegg and found 15 of them. So he was not setting criteria that aren't reasonable and possibly unattainable because they are all over. Found 24" 2ms Acer for $199 free shipping on newegg. I don't see any of those monitors having DP.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617+600012673+600030619&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=20&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

Secondly, he seems to believe that users will spend between $600 - $900 on dual high-end GPUs from NVIDIA, but would only be looking at "low-end monitors." I would think these users would want the images they paid so much to generate to be displayed on at least a mid-range display. I believe most of these users would know the benefit of an IPS panel and be willing to spend the money on this quality panel.

I don't recall him saying that in the review, I think that comes down to your opinion on what is low end vs High End. I have no problem with my FH2401 monitors and I got them for $189 a piece. Are there any IPS 3D panels? I found one for 10K from panasonic. Are you going to tell me that it is worth that much money.

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=394528&modelNo=Content02122010120807194&surfModel=Content02122010120807194

I did find an IPS 24 panel with DP for $425 from HP but that would be $1275 just for 3 monitors vs $700 for 3 monitors and the adapter. So you can see that yea it does end up being more exp. I can't find a DP monitor in the 24" size that is in the $200 range.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471.html

Finally, in his closing thoughts he thinks that if users get the chance to experience 3D Surround, they would spend the extra $650 for the 120Hz panels and the glasses. But, earlier he fails to make any concession that users would pay an extra $150 for three IPS panels with DisplayPort connections. Most users I know would be willing to pay the small additional cost ($50/panel) for a better quality panel with more connection options.

That's interesting you feel that way Ibrin I mean the article and review was not about monitors, it was comparing Eyefinity to Surround, and then showing Nvidia 3D Surround. So of course he is going to talk about the 3D monitors, why would you expect him to rant on about how users should spend more on IPS panels because they are a better quality panel. That would have nothing to do about the review. I mean sure yea throw some IPS panels into the review for ATI. It would make ATI that much more expensive though, and that was part of the review as well was comparing the cost. And yes I would agree with him, I think 3D monitors would be way more of an experience then these IPS monitors you always talk about. You think people would rather have a more exp IPS panel then a 3D monitor. It honestly looks to me like your getting worked up over this review. I hope I am not pissing you off, I am just saying I don't see how you are not seeing the whole picture and the point of the review.

Based on what I've read (NV didn't send me any hardware to evaluate), NVIDIA has a compelling offering. However, I feel that this review attempts to shoehorn in a price argument that adds $100 to the ATI cost. While someone might say it's "only $100", it basically doubles the cost difference between a 5870 and GTX470 SLI, or a 5970 and GTX480 SLI. For an additional comparison it adds another 25% savings when comparing a single 5870 to GTX480 SLI.

Compelling offering? it is the best offering, Everyone always talks about price vs performance on ATI side, well this time around for surround I think Nvidia is the clear winner. Like I said above, you can get 2 GTX470's for $600 and you can get a 5870 and an adapter for $500. The extra $100 for Nvidia route would be worth it to anyone I know, and on top of that you get cuda and physx.

But if you want to talk about well you don't need the adapter if you have DP monitors, ok that's true but they are going to be more exp than non DP monitors. I can't find any DP 24" monitors for $200. Nvidia does not need DP so using Nvidia route you can easily find 24" monitors for $200 and sometimes less, I got mine for $189 a piece and I love my monitors they look great IMHO. So my point is if you went ATI without the adapter, and got DP monitors it would end up bring more exp then just using the adapter, this would then make it just as expensive as Nvidia route. Do you know what the cheapest 24" monitor is out right now? I wanna know so I can add it up and see how the pricing really turns out.

And how does a $100 adapter double the cost difference.

Why would you compare the cost of a 5870 to two 480's when the 470's even beat 5870's crossfire by a lot. And 470's are cheaper

And yea I think everyone adds the adapter cost in. At least everyone I know had to get one.

Seems like you really do like ATI...

The whole point of the article was to show how much better performance you get with Nvidia Surround compared to ATI Eyefinity and I think they did just that.

Not going to parse the post and get into the "quote quote quote" thing...

The PCPer review was a total review of the NV3DS package - price, performance, cost, heat, everything. The only reason I mentioned that 1080p specifically was needed for 3D was to try and keep and apples-to-apples comparison. Looking at NewEgg, 17 of the 30 24" monitors are 1080p (the other 13 are 1200), so almost a 50/50 split. All 37 of the 23" monitors are 1080p, as well as all 28 of the 21.5" in monitors. 1080p is far more prevalent in the slightly smaller monitors, while only about half of the larger. Solely looking for a "low-end monitor" (his words) at the larger size seems to limit your options. Why not look for a better quality monitor (and probably cheaper) monitor at the slightly smaller size?

In his review of 3DVS he is budgeting between $600 and $900 for either GTX 470 for 480 in SLI. Very few people would consider that anything but "high end." In his review he specifically talks about looking for "low-end" monitors. To quote:

Above you can see we have included the $100 price for an active DisplayPort to DVI adapter that is going to be required for users if you are not using native DisplayPort monitors. There are still very few of those adapters on the market and we couldn't find any on the low-end (sub $230) 24-in 1080p panels available.

As far as cheaper monitors with DP:
Dell U2211H 22" IPS for $259 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-9271
The Dell U2311H 23" IPS was quoted as being $299, but Dell doesn't have it for sale at the moment. I did see it the other week. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/13/dell-pumps-out-a-pair-of-new-ultrasharp-1080p-ips-lcds-asks-a-p/
HP ZR22w 22" IPS for $289
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-4101127.html

The cost and quality of the panel does come into play when he specifically makes cost and feature arguments about specific panels. As far as the "best offering", that is your opinion. It may be the "fastest" (that is measurable), but "best" is qualitative and allows people to weigh the pros and cons as they see fit. Requiring SLI may also mean users would have to upgrade their PSU to handle the two cards. When you start talking total costs, it all comes into play.

I said it "basically" doubles the cost difference. Two of his comparisons show ATI being either $129 or $139 cheaper. Without the adapter cost, that becomes $229 and $239.



I like both ATI and NVIDIA, though I have publicly stated in my reviews I've hated the ATI CCC. For the longest time the WSGF solely recommended NV cards for a number of reasons. These are the first ATI cards I've ever owned, going all the way back to the NV 5600. Based on your posts and rants we know that you hate ATI.

If the only point of the article was to show performance, then they wouldn't have talked heat, noise and cost. It was a "review", not simply a set of benchmarks.

Where are those 24" 1080P IPS DP monitors? My monitors don't suck and they are cheap. But they don't have DP, so where can I find a 24" DP monitor for the same price I got my monitors for so a user would not have to pay the $100 for the adapter. Lets say the user wanted 24" I don't want 22" and I just use 2D surround, or Eyefinity. I wanted to compare the cost of 3 24" non DP monitors, $100 adapter, and 2X 5870's vs 3 24" DP monitors and 2X 5870's vs 3 24" non DP monitors and 2X GTX470's. And then compare the price vs performance.

Requiring SLI may also mean users would have to upgrade their PSU to handle the two cards.

Uhhh most people who have the money and are looking into any of these cards most likely already have a good enough power supply. I don't get why people always bring that up, if that is the case you have to factor in your whole pc cost as well. And the fact that it requires SLI is great, a single 5870 does run eyefinity but not that great and you have to turn down settings for smooth gameplay so again ends up not looking as great, so that would defeat the purpose of having a higher end monitor. I would rather spend the extra money on better performance and be able to run the games at higher settings that would end up looking great. Think about it, mario brothers can only look so good right. How much better is mario brothers going to look on a more expensive IPS panel than a cheaper regular 24" monitor.

The cost and quality of the panel does come into play when he specifically makes cost and feature arguments about specific panels.

Not really sure what your saying here, the dude just mentioned you need a $100 adapter if you don't have a native DP monitor. How is that a feature argument it is a fact. Sure they could have bought some extra monitors with DP just so you would have been happy but they were using Acer 3D monitors that do not have DP. So in order for them to use those displays in 2D it required them to get a $100 adapter, maybe they didn't have the funds to get extra monitors in there price range he listed, maybe that was all the budget they had for the reviews. They could have not got the 3D displays and got some 24" DP monitors and compared just 2D surround vs Eyefinity and again GTX470 would still be the cheaper route and better performer.

So all in all I don't get what your so upset over in that review. Are you upset that it was not a monitor review or that they didn't provide pricing for monitors that have DP.

And on top of the whole price thing people could always get some 260's you can get 2 260's used for around $200 heck you can run one monitor on each card so they could also get 3 260's for around $300. You keep talking about total cost, and denying the fact that Nvidia is the winner here with surround. Anyone who reads that review will have no doubt that Nvidia is the better choice.

And you can get the same DP IPS monitors with the Nvidia route like you said, get a better display, it would still be cheaper to go with GTX470's than 5870's and would outperform, and would also have a better quality monitor.

What route do you think is the better performer.

I don't hate ATI and have never been a fanboy of either... otherwise I would have never bought ATI to begin with. There great cards just not as good as fermi, Nvidia cards offer a lot more performance than ATI, Cuda, Physx, they scale a lot better than ATI as well, tessellation is way way way better because of CUDA right. I could go on all day about this.

Hey if anyone lives in the states and disagrees and wants to go the ATI route, I will trade both my 5870's with transferable warranty for 2 GTX470's. Save your self some money buy some 470's and trade me straight across. See how many people take me up on that offer. I will even throw in my $100 adapter so you don't have to buy DP monitors, or the adapter.

Having been a Matrox TH2Go user on a pair of 9800's and then 280GTX's, I'm just THRILL that BOTH ATI *and* Nvidia have joined the ranks. The fact that they both now support the tech is fantastic news for us triple-screen fanboys. :mrgreen: Here's hoping that the devs start paying some more attention to what is still, unfortunately, a very small subset of PC Gamers.

On a side note, I've got to say that the ability to do 3D on three monitors is something I've been waiting for a LONG time. I know many people shrug off 3D gaming, but I've gotta agree with the Tom's Hardware review; once you see it work on a game that really supports it, it is VERY hard to go back.

I played WoW for a LONG time on a 24" Sony CRT with LCD glasses and it was one of the most amazing gaming experiences I've ever had. It was a tough decision for me to give up my beast of a CRT and go to LCD's for surround gaming thus giving up (for the time at least) 3D gaming.

Although I have not owned an ATI card in a long time (the Radeon 9800 I think), I REALLY hope that they too go the 3D route.

The more surround gaming setups (and for that matter, 3D gaming setups) out there, the better chance that we'll all get games that the techs works well on (BFBC2) and less that plain suck at it (Mass Effect 2).

Vive la Difference!

_________________
Gigabyte GTX 980 - SLI

i7-4770k @4ghz

16GB Ram

Planar SA2311W 3D Vision monitors (x3)

Windows 7 x64 Ultimate SP1