Need triple monitor card

[Sorin]

Preface: The system for this is Kubuntu 14.04 64-bit (dual boots Windows 10 though)

My system is as in the sig. I currently have an EVGA GTX 460. It has two DVI ports and one mini HDMI port.

Right now I have two monitors and everything was going fine until we actually got a TV last week (haven't had a tv in YEARS, and even then it was a 19" tube!). So I connected it to my video card and couldn't actually get all three displays working together at the same time. Turns out that while the hardware has three ports, it doesn't actually support using all three simultaneously (I guess they're there to give options). Apparently this is a Fermi limitation that was addressed in future architectures.

The three displays are thus. I provide links so you can see specs.

Monitor 1: HP ZR24w
Monitor 2: HP Z24i
TV: Sony KDL40W600B

The two monitors apparently don't have HDMI inputs, so this would need to be taken into account. When I got the GTX 460 about 3 years ago, I had a Radeon X1950 XTX, and the GTX 460 was an enormous jump in terms of horsepower. So I'm looking for a card that will be as close as possible to a similar jump while also being able to simultaneously use all three of my displays and be less than $200 (if possible; I'm willing to go a tad over). I could research this on my own, but between babies and work I just don't have the time for this stuff that I used to, so I'm putting my faith and trust in my OC buddies!

 

[EarthDog]

Are you playing games across all 3 monitors, or just playing on one at 1080p?

If its just one, I would grab something like a GTX 960 with your budget.

 

[DNRDustin]

Are you playing games across all 3 monitors, or just playing on one at 1080p?

If its just one, I would grab something like a GTX 960 with your budget.

Will a 960 not be able to push 3 monitors at 1080?

 

[EarthDog]

Correct, it won't be able to GAME well at 5760x1080. Not nearly enough horsepower to do so. It will however game just fine at 1920x1080 and put a picture up on the other two screns.

 

[DNRDustin]

Correct, it won't be able to GAME well at 5760x1080. Not nearly enough horsepower to do so. It will however game just fine at 1920x1080 and put a picture up on the other two screns.

We'll that... Is... Unfortunate.

 

[EarthDog]

Its a $200 budget and a midrange card. Its not expected to drive 3x 1080 monitors. One would need to open up their wallet a bit more for that... think GTX 980 or AMD's R9 390 or greater.

 

[JrClocker]

5760x1080 is pretty close to 4K for gaming resolution.

Agree that a 960 will be able to game at 1920x1080, but not at 5760x1080.

A 960 will drive 3 monitors just fine though.

 

[Janus67]

Yep a 960 will be able to display on all 3 screens no problem, I just wouldn't expect even OK performance if you actually tried to span a game across all 3 displays. Playing on one and displaying on the other two (with a browser/etc) will be perfectly acceptable though.

 

[EarthDog]

4K is uses over 1/3 more pixels (~6.22M vs 8.29M). Not sure I call that close.

 

[Sorin]

With tax season next month and considering what I'm getting, I may increase the budget.

At any rate, I would only game with one monitor; the games I tend to play don't really benefit from more than that. Also, only the TV is 1080, where it belongs. No 1080 garbage on my monitors, they're 1920x1200.

It seems DVI is becoming somewhat less popular, as the cards these days appear to have only 1 most of the time. So it looks like the ZR24w will go DVI, the Z24i will have to go DisplayPort, and the TV will be on HDMI. Hopefully the card will run ok with such a hodgepodge of connections going at the same time.

 

[Janus67]

I'd be surprised if there was an issue

 

[Kenrou]

No 1080 garbage on my monitors, they're 1920x1200.

1080p is 1920x1080, technically your monitors are still "garbage" by your own words (next to zero difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200) personally i would've bought 1080p with 2ms or lower instead of 7ms/8ms since at least one is for gaming, but maybe im just nitpicking....

 

[Sorin]

1080p is 1920x1080, technically your monitors are still "garbage" by your own words (next to zero difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200) personally i would've bought 1080p with 2ms or lower instead of 7ms/8ms since at least one is for gaming, but maybe im just nitpicking....

By your reasoning, all monitors are garbage because they all do lower resolutions from 20-25 years ago. I think that any reasonable person would agree that I was talking about maximum (and in the case of non-tube monitors, optimal) resolution. The extra 120 pixels in height might not matter to most people, but to me it makes a big difference with all of the reading and programming that I do. I can't stand 1080 on a monitor! It's like 1200 went out of style on monitors when the whole "HD!!!!" buzzword craze came around. On a TV it's fine and when watching movies it's fine, but for everyday stuff, no way I'm doing 1080 if I can help it.

On paper, the monitors may be "slow," but I haven't noticed a difference between this and the 12ms Dell 2005FPW I had before the ZR24w replaced it. I'm not the type of person that's going to notice 4ms on everyday usage (side by side tests, maybe). I got the ZR24w over 4 years ago, so the response time was what it was for my budget back then. I got the Z24i a few months back because I wanted a monitor that was as close as possible to being identical to the ZR24w, since the latter couldn't really be had anymore.

When I played EQ2, an extra 120px (1680x1050) would have made a BIG difference with all of the crap I had on the screen!

 

[rbstern]

I'm running a three 1080p monitor setup, primarily for work, but I do use it for gaming. I'm using a Sapphire R9 285 with 2GB of RAM (see my sig for complete setup). Lately, I've been playing Dirt Rally and War Thunder, both at high or very high settings, at 5760x1080. Works great. It really depends on what games you want to play and how fussy you are about maxing out the settings.

Nearly all of the recent cards will let you use three devices. You may need adapters, depending on the card and the interfaces on your monitors. My R9 285 is 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 1 mini DisplayPort. All of my monitors are DVI. Cables I use are: (2) DVI to HDMI, (1) mini Displayport to DVI.

 

[EarthDog]

There is no way I would get a 2GB card for 1080p (unless I absolutely could not afford more), none the less for 5760x1080...

 

[rbstern]

There is no way I would get a 2GB card for 1080p (unless I absolutely could not afford more), none the less for 5760x1080...

I did, and I'm completely enjoying it. Works great. Like I said, it depends on the titles you play and how fussy you are about maxing out every last setting.

 

[EarthDog]

I get it. I also get that a lot of titles easily eclipse that 2GB mark (more of those every day!) and can cause hitching (because its paging out to system ram) which can really take away from immersion in a title. I guess Im from the camp of if it can look better, it should look better. I tend not to sacrifice image quality and run things as they were designed to look.

 

[Kenrou]

(next to zero difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200)

By your reasoning, all monitors are garbage because they all do lower resolutions from 20-25 years ago. I think that any reasonable person would agree that I was talking about maximum (and in the case of non-tube monitors, optimal) resolution. The extra 120 pixels in height might not matter to most people, but to me it makes a big difference with all of the reading and programming that I do. I can't stand 1080 on a monitor! It's like 1200 went out of style on monitors when the whole "HD!!!!" buzzword craze came around. On a TV it's fine and when watching movies it's fine, but for everyday stuff, no way I'm doing 1080 if I can help it.

How do you go from "next to zero difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200" to "By your reasoning, all monitors are garbage because they all do lower resolutions from 20-25 years ago" ? makes absolutely no sense. Nowadays the difference really is minimal, you can fit what, another 5-10 lines of text maybe if you're programming/reading ? If size matters so much to you, why not just dump 2 of those and get a 40" 4K which will suit you better ?

If you had a game that was truly beautiful to see or would require the additional screen size like World of Warcraft 40man raids or Final Fantasy (EQII is as far away from that standard as Runescape IMO), i would agree with you, otherwise, "small" 1080p should suit most people just fine for everyday stuffs.

Or do you absolutely HAVE TO HAVE 3 monitors ?

 

[Sorin]

How do you go from "next to zero difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200" to "By your reasoning, all monitors are garbage because they all do lower resolutions from 20-25 years ago" ? makes absolutely no sense. Nowadays the difference really is minimal, you can fit what, another 5-10 lines of text maybe if you're programming/reading ? If size matters so much to you, why not just dump 2 of those and get a 40" 4K which will suit you better ?

I was referring to the garbage part, since you seemed to be implying that 1200 technically fits 1080 on the screen, therefore it fits the criteria of being 1080 garbage.

Believe me, several extra lines of text when programming can frequently make a BIG difference.

If you had a game that was truly beautiful to see or would require the additional screen size like World of Warcraft 40man raids or Final Fantasy (EQII is as far away from that standard as Runescape IMO), i would agree with you, otherwise, "small" 1080p should suit most people just fine for everyday stuffs.

I would disagree that EQ2 is far away from a "standard' if comparing to WoW - I would actually classify it as the other way around. WoW's graphics are very cartoony and simple, EQ2's (especially with max settings) are certainly not. As for EQ2 and screen size, with all of the spell bars and chat windows and status windows on the screen (especially during raids), an extra 120px would have been amazing when I was playing it back in the day; it would have given me, in relative terms, a lot of extra uncluttered visual area.

Or do you absolutely HAVE TO HAVE 3 monitors ?

3? No. 2? YES. Back to the programming thing, it makes a huge difference. Specifically, for running and debugging while also being able to simultaneously view the code without having to alt+tab or just have tiny windows. It's also great because I can let someone watch some streaming stuff on one monitor while I carry about my business on the other one.

3, again, helps for programming, but no, it's not a need. It's actually a TV, and only because the TV and the desk happen to be physically close enough together that I can say "hell, why not!"

 

[rbstern]

I get it. I also get that a lot of titles easily eclipse that 2GB mark (more of those every day!) and can cause hitching (because its paging out to system ram) which can really take away from immersion in a title. I guess Im from the camp of if it can look better, it should look better. I tend not to sacrifice image quality and run things as they were designed to look.

And if that suits you, by all means, it's your money and your enjoyment.

I was worried about VRAM when thinking about my setup. After reading a ridiculous amount of reviews, it became clear that VRAM quantity is an area not to obsess about for most buyers. So I stopped worrying about it, and I'm glad I did. The benchmarking in the reviews doesn't show much impact from RAM over 2GB, except in the most extreme testing.

In an ideal world, we'd all have three GTX 980's in SLI, in a full tower build, with a custom external loop, a 1200 watt PSU and a bunch of 4K monitors, if only because there is some game title out there that will challenge such a setup. Point is, for casual gaming or other practical situations, not all of us need that kind of capability.

Some of us hunt squirrels, rather than elephants.