2560x1080 Monitor performance hit??

[tommack]

With christmas coming up, I have seen a lot of really impressive deals on wide-screen monitors and they have peaked my interest some what.

I have done a little research into them and was thinking about picking up one of the LG 2560x1080 widescreen monitors. I decided against going for the 1440p model as my superclocked 770 2gb card wouldnt be able to hangle games with that resolution.

I did a little digging myself and ran some bechmarks on one of Arma 3's bootcamp missions, which takes place in a fairly intensive part of the world. It was unning on my 1920x1080 monitor with a second 1080p monitor displaying a playing youtube video and skype (to recreate daily usage). This gave me an average FPS of 55.

I then used Nvidia surround and replayed the mission. The resolution was 3840x1080 with a 21:9 aspect ration... this gave me and average FPS of 46.

Can I expect performance to be between a 46 and 55 FPS average on 2560x1080 panel??

Thanks,
Tom

P.S. This 2560x1080 screen would replace my 2 currect 1920x1080 monitors. :)

[_I_]

its about 33% more pixels than 1920x1080

if you were 55fps, expect it to go to around 40fps at the same settigns and higher res

but you can run the game at 1920x1080 and have black bars on the sides to keep the fps higher

edit
if you want to run all 3 in nv surround or eyefinity, you will need a much better gpu

[Azza ☠]

Nvidia Surround requires at least 3 monitors due to games center point of focus - and therefore would be 5760 x 1080. I believe you just did duel monitor - therefore the game would only be running on one monitor while the other acts as an accessory display. This is why you are still getting a good framerate.

If you wanted 1440p - I would recommend a GTX 780 or it's better replacement card GTX 970.

If your looking for UltraHD 4K resolutions, then you need a GTX 980 minimum, however more likely SLI of multiple graphic cards to be anywhere enough performance to still play games at high settings.

A GTX 770 would be able to do 2560x1080 (21:9), but not enough FPS for quality gaming performance. Either upgrade and replace to a GTX 970, or using 2x GTX 770 in SLI would be recommended for that kind of resolution in gaming. However, it would still perform a lot better than UltraHD 4K.

When your looking for ultrawide screens 21:9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di Azza ☠:

Nvidia Surround requires at least 3 monitors due to games center point of focus - and therefore would be 5760 x 1080. I believe you just did duel monitor - therefore the game would only be running on one monitor while the other acts as an accessory display. This is why you are still getting a good framerate.

If you wanted 1440p - I would recommend a GTX 780 or it's better replacement card GTX 970.

If your looking for UltraHD 4K resolutions, then you need a GTX 980 minimum, however more likely SLI of multiple graphic cards to be anywhere enough performance to still play games at high settings.

A GTX 770 would be able to do 2560x1080 (21:9), but not enough FPS for quality gaming performance. Either upgrade and replace to a GTX 970, or using 2x GTX 770 in SLI would be recommended for that kind of resolution in gaming. However, it would still perform a lot better than UltraHD 4K.

When your looking for ultrawide screens 21:9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

Thanks for the replies guys,

Azza, your comment about the second monitor being an "accessory" slightly confuses me.
The resolution Nvidia said the displayS were running at when joined together was 3840x1080. Which is a higher resolution than a 2560x1080 single panel monitor. When you say its an "accessory" - the second monitor still has to display pixels and therefore must be as equally challegning to power for the GPU as the other monitor. If i were to purchase the 2560x1080 monitor, it will be less challenging to power for the GPU as the resolution is smaller [also, additional software tweaking, such as Nvidia Surround, won't be nessaccery]

From the logic I just explained, that should leave the FPS average for a 2560x1080 monitor between the two averages I've tested. [A lower than 2560 res monitor and, effectivley a "higher" than 2560 res monitor].

[Azza ☠]

You can't run a game on only across two monitors - because the center view point would be split between them. That's why Nvidia Surround requires 3 monitors.

Nvidia calls additional monitor(s) which don't display the game as "accessory" displays. This means, the game will display on one or more of the other monitors, but that one will be left out to just display the Windows desktop, etc. You can then place your web-browser, chat, etc, on that one as "accessories", while gaming away on the other(s).

The thing to note, is that "accessory" monitors don't require as much graphic card processing, as the game itself isn't displayed on it. It's displaying a much more static image which doesn't change as often, and therefore requires less calculations from the GPU to update each frame. It's not as demanding, so take that into consideration. As the larger monitor will be displaying the entire game across it (therefore under the game settings, increasing it's resolution and using more graphic performance / graphic memory to process).

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di Azza ☠:

You can't run a game on only across two monitors - because the center view point would be split between them. That's why Nvidia Surround requires 3 monitors.

Nvidia calls additional monitor(s) which don't display the game as "accessory" displays. This means, the game will display on one or more of the other monitors, but that one will be left out to just display the Windows desktop, etc. You can then place your web-browser, chat, etc, on that one as "accessories", while gaming away on the other(s).

The thing to note, is that "accessory" monitors don't require as much graphic card processing, as the game itself isn't displayed on it. It's displaying a much more static image which doesn't change as often, and therefore requires less calculations from the GPU to update each frame. It's not as demanding, so take that into consideration. As the larger monitor will be displaying the entire game across it (therefore under the game settings, increasing it's resolution and using more graphic performance / graphic memory to process).

The bechmark that I did on 3840x1080, which i referenced as using "nvidia surround" had the game running across both monitors, making full use of both monitors.

http://s17.postimg.org/4iezwtskf/20141208_163333.jpg

[_I_]

with a widescreen 16:9 and ultra wide 21:9 the center will be on the ultra wide near the widescreen side

if they have thin bezels it could be ok for gaming

but your 770 will not be able to max games like that
you can lower settigns aa/af ect.. to make it run better

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di _I_:

with a widescreen 16:9 and ultra wide 21:9 the center will be on the ultra wide near the widescreen side

if they have thin bezels it could be ok for gaming

but your 770 will not be able to max games like that
you can lower settigns aa/af ect.. to make it run better

Right! I used Arma as an extreme example to simulate lmax load, I had all the setting cranked... At those same settings on a 2560x1080, should i expect to see performance between the average scores of the 3840x1080 bech and the 1920x1080 bench??? This is my question.

[_I_]

if its a single gpu running both monitors, yoru fps will be cut in half

[Azza ☠]

Messaggio originale di Tom Mack:

Messaggio originale di _I_:

with a widescreen 16:9 and ultra wide 21:9 the center will be on the ultra wide near the widescreen side

if they have thin bezels it could be ok for gaming

but your 770 will not be able to max games like that
you can lower settigns aa/af ect.. to make it run better

Right! I used Arma as an extreme example to simulate lmax load, I had all the setting cranked... At those same settings on a 2560x1080, should i expect to see performance between the average scores of the 3840x1080 bech and the 1920x1080 bench??? This is my question.

Well I stand corrected, but that is very odd to me, why would you game across two monitors? You can see the issue from the screenshot itself... I thought they forced Nvidia Surround not to allow that.

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di Azza ☠:

Messaggio originale di Tom Mack:

Right! I used Arma as an extreme example to simulate lmax load, I had all the setting cranked... At those same settings on a 2560x1080, should i expect to see performance between the average scores of the 3840x1080 bech and the 1920x1080 bench??? This is my question.

Well I stand corrected, but that is very odd to me, why would you game across two monitors? You can see the issue from the screenshot itself... I thought they forced Nvidia Surround not to allow that.

I am only gaming across two monitors to create a benchmark of performance at a higher resolution. Nvidia sourround settings {right-click desktop, nivdia control panel, configure surround} allowed me to do this.
My question is, can I expect to see performance on a single panel 2560x1080 monitor [which is a lower resolution than the 2 monitors combined in surround -refer to the image-] be between that of a single panel 1920x1080 monitor and a (hyperthetcical) 3840x1080 monitor(S)??

1920x1080 AVG benchmark = 55FPS
3840x1080 [across two 1920x1080 monitors] AVG benchmark = 46FPS

This is the 2560x1080 monitor I am looking to buy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-29UM65-P-Inch-Wide-Monitor/dp/B00HYZXZ7O)

[_I_]

if the fps difference is that small, its most likely a cpu bottleneck

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di _I_:

if the fps difference is that small, its most likely a cpu bottleneck

Sorry, i dont think you understand where Im coming from. That doesnt answer the question.

[Azza ☠]

I would actually suggest asking this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

He highly recommends the same type of monitor (just a larger size), suggesting it's much better to get than UltraHD 4K and probably a lot better performance too.

I believe he was also using the GTX 770 with that in the demostration?

Just note the monitor panel is "IPS", therefore it's true/rich in colours and clarity, but would be slightly slow for gaming purposes. Make sure the refresh rate is 5ms or less.

[rotNdude]

Messaggio originale di Tom Mack:

My question is, can I expect to see performance on a single panel 2560x1080 monitor [which is a lower resolution than the 2 monitors combined in surround -refer to the image-] be between that of a single panel 1920x1080 monitor and a (hyperthetcical) 3840x1080 monitor(S)??

1920x1080 AVG benchmark = 55FPS
3840x1080 [across two 1920x1080 monitors] AVG benchmark = 46FPS

The simple answer is yes, if your GPU is maxed out at 1920x1080 when you're getting 55FPS.

[tommack]

Messaggio originale di Azza ☠:

I would actually suggest asking this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

He highly recommends the same type of monitor (just a larger size), suggesting it's much better to get than UltraHD 4K and probably a lot better performance too.

I believe he was also using the GTX 770 with that in the demostration?

That monitor is 3440x1440. Which is a lot bigger than the 2560x1080 monitor I was looking into getting. The performance would be a lot worse on that due to the fact it has 2x the amount of pixels.