- last edited on by
ROGBot
Just an idea I have been wondering over for a while.
I love the idea of running 3 screens side by side to get the full vision feeling into a game. In all setups I keep seeing the triple screens being exactly rthe same thus full HD or 2560 screens or even 4K screens time 3.
However my question is. Why is no one seemingly setting up for example a 2560 screen as the center screen with 2 x full HD on the sides. Even in real life everyone knows that our eyes only have a smaller and very sharp focus with very wide peripheral vision around in real life situations. Tough we are superfast in refocusing the eyes.
I would have imagined that in such a setup the eyes 90% of the time is focusing on the center screen with the other two adding context. I would imagine it would save a huge amount of GPU processing power.
So why is it not used? is there too many issues with scaling of the frames or what is the reason?
tnx
It started with a VIC-20... and now it is. Maximus Formula VI Intel 4770K 4.6GHz ASUS GTX780Ti 3GB Corsair Platinum Dominator 16GB 2400MHz Raid Express 240GB Samsung EVO 512 GB SSD Corsair 900D EK watercooling Corsair RM1000 ASUS PB278Q
I love the idea of running 3 screens side by side to get the full vision feeling into a game. In all setups I keep seeing the triple screens being exactly rthe same thus full HD or 2560 screens or even 4K screens time 3.
However my question is. Why is no one seemingly setting up for example a 2560 screen as the center screen with 2 x full HD on the sides. Even in real life everyone knows that our eyes only have a smaller and very sharp focus with very wide peripheral vision around in real life situations. Tough we are superfast in refocusing the eyes.
I would have imagined that in such a setup the eyes 90% of the time is focusing on the center screen with the other two adding context. I would imagine it would save a huge amount of GPU processing power.
So why is it not used? is there too many issues with scaling of the frames or what is the reason?
tnx
Yes you can do that
Or, you can set up three screens in portrait to more or less maintain the 16:9 ratio that is based on our field of vision.
Why this weird craze of three in a line is well beyond me....every time I see it I wonder about peoples ability to convince themselves of anything 😉
Or, you can set up three screens in portrait to more or less maintain the 16:9 ratio that is based on our field of vision.
Why this weird craze of three in a line is well beyond me....every time I see it I wonder about peoples ability to convince themselves of anything 😉
i lovet that setup Arne, that to me looks more logical than the 3 in line with superwidth and would save money. I thought no one did this as i have never seen any test setups like that, nor seen it mentioned in any reviews. Its always all landscape or all portrait and same size. I have 2 screens (not for gaming) and i see them working in tandem pretty well though on some initial benchmarks when iwas testing the setup overall some benchmark software got confuse which screen to use as they had fixed ratios.
It started with a VIC-20... and now it is. Maximus Formula VI Intel 4770K 4.6GHz ASUS GTX780Ti 3GB Corsair Platinum Dominator 16GB 2400MHz Raid Express 240GB Samsung EVO 512 GB SSD Corsair 900D EK watercooling Corsair RM1000 ASUS PB278Q
Hi, I got nvidia surround going on three horizontal screens (+ a touch screen), nvidia control panel lets you correct for bezels, and just extends the picture (I got it at 5320 x 1050), so you don´t get black bars left and right, like you would with TripleHead2Go. The screens have each their own picture when you choose "extend desktop to this display". There´s also the option to duplicate like you mentioned, Arne, but I haven´t fiddled with that.
