Anyone have this game working on a Tripple Screen setup ? My game runs flawlessly on 1 screen 1920 x 1200, but put it in nvidia surround and it pulls about 5 - 14fps. Even on the menu... Driver issue probably just wondering if anyone has it working fine on nvidia surround?
I have it running at 6000x1200 with 2 x GTX 580 3GBs. They are overheating though. Otherwise, game runs fine, with a bit of stutter.
Cool, nice cards! Heard it works well on the 3GB 580s. My rig ran the beta at about 40-50 fps tripple screen but there was no ultra textures in the beta, only high settings. And in full release it pulls about 5fps? Even on the main menu. However even in 1920 resolution the beta of the game didnt run that great, the full release seems to run alot better even with ultra settings and everything on the max. Something is definatly wrong with nvidia surround and the game, i hope they get it sorted.
I have a very awkward thing to say but it's the thruth so here I go with a little crosspost from the amd section: öther user: In the video it states: 200-250MB of streamed object mesh 1.3Gig-1.5Gig streamed object texture At ultra settings it used a texture pool of 500MB. What are you talking about? my findings so far: Well ehm did you watch the video or just the slide with these digits? The guy states that he cannot place all of the textures in the Vram coz most ppl use 1 GB or even less...that's why the game uses texture streaming as well as a lot of other modern games do.....which works "ok" too and explains the constant fps stories at different settings... IF you have 2 Gb all of the textures cvan be loaded though which is the ideal situation and it will gain over 50% more fps at these settigs... 2GB is the winning config here and it is in most games btw... I gurantee you triple monitor gaming beats every other experience so just go out and buy a decent radeon and 2 extra displays coz it's the only way to get the real thrill-ride..dont think just do it asap for way more fun in life When your broke steal them or so but make sure U get this Think it over: the 560 and 570 are in the midrange section with 6850, 6870 and 5870 1gb cards... 580 is keeping up with 2gb cards but has way harder dips in fps @3500x1920 (3240 with bezel compensation) I persoanally like 3x 1080x1920 (3x portrait) 10x more than the landscape eyefinity coz it's almost 16:9 and just feels so much more high res. ....so gtx580 is not really 100% suited for the high end section as well...(an expensive shiver runs down some spiones...) even 590 will be fluctuating caused by lack of vram...although it will be able to run 3 displays off course. the dice video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMaL6j7Ry6c AT 8:10 min in this presenatation is explained 1GB isn´t at all anough for this game b(and most other newer games)...2GB is hardly enough...that´s why AMD takes the performance crown after all in high end section
Not sure what you are getting at, but I upgraded from 2 x 6950 2GB cards in eyefinity (both cards flashed to 6970s) to 2 x 3GB GTX 580s, simply because they were just not powerful enough to run the game at that high a resolution (6000 x 1200) at ULTRA settings. For the 580s, however, it is a breeze. The real selling point is the fact that SLI seems far better than CFX for triple screens, helping to reduce dramatic microstutter, which plague my last 3 purchases of AMD cards.
Nakquada, I will be getting my new system, which looks very similar to yours any day now (if UPS picks up the pace). I'm currently playing bf3 on a 2010 MacBook pro. Needless to say, the experience lacks something to be desired. I built my new system in the hopes of playing on three screens ( for the first time ever). I have heard, however, that adding NV Surround to the mix really stresses the cards and most cannot get decent frames without tuning everything down. I want to play on ultra or as close as I can while in surround. Are you truly serious about the results you are getting with dual 580 3Gb's? I've scoured the web trying to find someone with a system similar to mine stating that these babies can handle bf3 surround in high- ultra.
Sure a 3GB gtx580 is way faster than a HD6900 card. It's also double the price but when that's not an issue that card will do the job too. As far as I can see it's one of few nvidia card that's not crippled by it's lack of Vram when it comes to triple monitor gaming. SLI is better for 3 monitor gaming you say and I wasn't ware of that. When SLI is free of the little annoying things that make CFX stumble that makes an awesome setup as well. I prefer 1 overclocked card right now since it has nodriver issues at all. When I had 2xhd5770 in cf i was often wondering if the 2nd card really made pc gaming a better experience. My twinforzrII HD6950 runs fine when overclocked heavily. I game at speeds between 940 and 1000mhz core and it does not reach the 80c most of the time...only the voltage regulator accidentally overheats (up to 84c). At that speed it's in 580 performance regions. f.e. 6000 points in 3dmark11 and 24200 gpu score in 3dmark vantage a guess one can choose between the 250 euro Radeon setup or the 500 or 1000 euro nvidia solution. I don't always like CFX as well and I agree that's not always the way to go. Ow and 6000x1200 is nice but have you tried using the displays in portrait? It feels like a way more high resolution solid image and it shows less of the battlefield at once so it runs with higher FPS. 3240x1920 has way more "tilt" if you ask me> It makes you wanna scream and stuff when playing ...or maybe thats just me .
just my little advice on Triple Screen, avoid it at all cost. it sure look bad ass, but then you realise you need 300% of the GPU power in every single game to keep the same FPS. for that you must get a 4way sli (3way is only 250%), so you quickly realise having 4 580 instate of 1 + the power needed to feed them, it's a bit of an overkill for 2 screen you're not even going to look at directly.
I bet you never played on 3 displays.Your remark is just not based on experience that's for sure. It's very wrong to think that it's not possible without buying hardware that's too expensive. I play almost every game on 3 screens on my old workhorse: core i5 750 and hd6950 2GB. The remark about 300% pixels is solved with 2GB Vram A few games need to used lower settings (like crysis 1 and 2, Metro and Dirt3) but most games just run surprisingly well. BFBC2 for example runs with ultra settings hbao off and 2xaa 40-70 fps @3500x1920 or F1 2011: 3500x1920 ultra settigns 8x MSAA the entire 2GB Vram is used, framerate: 50 fps. The game comes aloive on 3 screens...on 1 display I don't like it half as much. It is just so much more fun than on 1 display. It's a thing that cannot be explained but can only be experienced. having 3 portrait displays is also a heck lot of fun when your on the internet...finally the browser gets some space..
I play on 1gb 460's I turn some stuff down and enjoy it. But it does have some serious HUD and alignment issues. In the end I love my 460's they are some great cards and I am really happy to own them. EDIT: Recenty upgraded to 560ti's with 2GB of VRAM. Works nice.
I have 4way GTX580s OC to 950/2200 and run fine at 6030x1080 with AVG 80FPS but I have to turn AA off. The 1.5gb cards dont have enough vram for surround on this game with AA no matter how much horsepower you throw at it. Just for comparison I can run 1920x1080 max settings and get 200FPS.. VRam is the limiting factor. Not many games need more than 1.5GB vram but BF3, Crysis2 and Metro 2033 are all games that need 2GB+ vram for surround with any amount of AA.
word High end setup in 2011 contains at least 3 displays. An honest computernerd needs the to have the baddest system available because he's not cool without it heheh... But besides that it's just so much more fun and productive compared to 1 screen That's why i was puzzled: GTX570 and 560 are midrange coz of little Vram and the king of cards the gtx580 appears to be a little crippled as well and doesn't quite fit in the "high end" range as well. It will score ok framerates but it will dip severely and deliver a shaky game @3screen with AA turned on. the HD6950 which costs half the price will not have the highest max framerate but will show way less dips and therefore give a more stable game-experience. That makes it more suited for high end systems...while it costs 250,- A guess the gtx580 3gb solves it but nvidia must have had a faulty vision for this generation of cards for the triple display setups. Having little Vram was a bad way to cut the costs of Fermi. f.e. the almost 300,- costing 570 should have been (close to) high end but it's not. edit: this is just THE nvidia card...didn't know it existed untill I just found it. It has more value than the gtx 580 1.5g in my opinion and it costs only 330 euro http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=025-P3-1579-AR&family=GeForce 500 Series Family&sw= then again...didnt nv surround require sli?? wow I love my videocard so much I remember I wanted an nvidia card coz they have a more professional look and the drivers are better ....and this is why they didnt sell me one...
Putting the displays in landscape OR portrait should make no difference to performance, as the displays are still putting out the exact same amount of pixels.
BF3 runs nice on my system with everything maxed except i use SSAO instead of HBAO and I don't use any AA. So its not max settings but i get 40-50fps on my 560ti 2gb's clocked to 960mhz. I'm running at 6016x1080
