advantage of eyefinity over one monitor

does three monitors with eyefinity actually give one more vision over one monitor?

 

Depends on the game.

Higher FOV = More vision but you dont suddenly grow 4 more eyes, the outside monitors are peripheral vision and just helps with immersion of the game more so than actually adding any advantage.

Simply put you can only look at one monitor at a time, you still focus on the center monitor.

 

what about games like call of duty, does the monitors on the side provide more vision? If it does than it is a serious advantage when playing on online since one will have more chance of seeing an enemy.

 

I just said it all in the last post.

You dont get any noticeable benefit, but it does make all games much more fun and interactive.

 

how many % points of increase in vision are we talking about for the game of call of duty.

 

Uh, I don't see how increasing the field of view does not give an advantage. Even with a single monitor, you can't focus on the whole monitor at one time. You can see movement in your peripheral vision. And you can focus on anything in that peripheral vision. Increasing the field of vision was also widely regarded as cheating, I find it hard to believe that it isn't anymore. I just don't see how someone can rationalize that it doesn't make a difference.

 

You can increase the fov on a single monitor too, nothing stopping you.

Then its all right infront of you.

When you have a 3x24" setup like me you cant even see the last half of the outside monitors so I only have about 2 monitors worth of content I can see.

Your trying to rationalize everything with your imagination, but me as an owner of a triple monitor setup have experienced it first hand.

My scores did not go up, but games are more fun.

Many games are Vert- so you actually see LESS on 3 monitors because its just a zoomed in image of one monitor cutting off the top & bottom view.

Think about 4:3 vs 16:9 vs 16:10 the extreme difference between 4:3 monitors and 16:9 monitors never made a bit difference in scores in online gaming.

But seems you guys are too concerned with your rank and score and not having fun.

 

What if I tell you that my fun comes from killing other players and win the matches. Therefore having extra vision would improve my kill ratio therefore increasing my intensity of having fun.

 

Then do as I said in Post#7 Increase your FOV on your monitor.

Did you start this thread just to cry or did you want to do something constructive and talk about eyefinity?

Save some pennies my friend and get your own eyefinity setup.


Im curious as to what your saying anyways. I guess your saying we should do away with eyefinity and also Nvidias new surround gaming, because its not fair.

Of course we also need to get rid of widescreen monitors, and all use 4:3. We need to get rid of surround sound systems because they offer better positoning and all use 1 speaker mono setups. We need to all get rid of our multi button gaming mice and all use 2 button mice because having more buttons greatly helps with reflex actions.

Better hardware = Better advantage.

Eyefinity offers the least amount of advantage of all the things I just listed. But until you think you will manage to overcome that and standardize gaming for everybody with the same hardware QQ.

And with that said I leave you with a video of my setup in action Enjoy




<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7bWkmyD1bfQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width='640'>

 

Vicious, that is one sweet setup every time I see it. As much as I want to go that route, I plan on getting an awesome laptop beginning of next year and don't know I'll have the coin to go triple monitor and upgrade my desktop. It definitely adds to the immersion. That was a smooth race you had there too.

 

And as the owner of 3x24 eyefinity setup I can AFFIRM that you get an enormous advantage, my last CODMW2 free for all score was 30-0

The advantage is enormous. Over.

 

I saw a pretty cool "eyefinity kit" the other day for like $400 it came with 3x 22" monitors and a 57xx card.

I think you need a 5870 or dual 5850's to really play in this resolution though.

But all you need is the gpu & monitors the rest of your current system should be ok. You can get TN monitors cheap these days, and perhaps grab a 2nd hand gpu when people start to sell them to upgrade to the next gen (or even just look for deals they are bound to show up soon)

lol so many varibles, you cant confirm anything.

bad players on other team
your a good player and/or had a good team.
luck
the list goes on and on

If I lost 15-0 one game and ate a chocolate bar and won 30-0 the next game it must mean that the sugar rush from the chocolate bar gave me an enormous advantage! its confirmed!

A good player on a 4:3 screen will still wipe the floor with a less player no mater how many monitors they have.

Plus who is to say your not just making it up

It all goes back to what I said before, there are so many ways to get a hardware advantage in PC gaming, nobody has any right to complain. If you dont feel its fair its time to start playing on consoles.

 

Yeah, you can pull the FOV out in any game on a single monitor. I did that in BFBC2 and it didn't make a lick of difference for me. I still died a lot.

 

So what are you saying ViciousXUSMC, you seem to be all over the place regarding having an extra-wide field of vision giving an advantage?

Nobody is complaining. Just saying that yes, it is definitely an advantage. And no, it is not a game changer. I was doing very for myself using stone age 1600x1200 60Hz CRT technology as late as 2009. But it is still and advantage any way you slice it.

 

I believe the correct statement to make is that there is no advantage associated with eyefinity. eyfinity is just being able to connect multiple monitors together for one image.

This is not a new thing, its been done for about 4 years now with the Matrox TripleHead2Go and also SoftTripleHead2Go, and now its just integrated into the GPU with eyefinity, and now more recently Nvidia has it too with Vision Surround or what ever they call it.

The advantage comes into play in some games with the increased FOV. However this same FOV increase can be had on a single monitor for the same advantage. Dont get eyefinity and fov mixed up they are not the same thing.

Being proactive in how you play by looking around a lot keeps your reflexes sharp and on point, if you get lazy and try to rely on the extra 2 side monitors in the far sides to spot people you will only find yourself a worse player.

As a result I play the same and score the same be I playing on one monitor or on 3. I also do go back and forth between the two often so I have a good baseline comparison.

If you bump the FOV on one monitor you will see everything right infront of you, no head movement needed, if you try to use the extra 2 monitors for vision instead of turning your character you will become slower as you have to move your head and not your eyes and of course in a FPS game if your not looking center your not looking where your shooting or moving.

So I conclude I see eyefinity as an instrument of immersion not an instrument of advantage.

 

In MW2, does the eyefinity allow you to play with enhanced FOV online (horz+)? Are you basically playing 48:9? If so, I could think of some specific advantages for that game. That doesn't mean the eyefinity is bad or cheating if it does, a giant high resolution monitor is also going to give you a benefit over someone with a tiny and lower resolution screen. We don't consider that cheating...

 

MW2 is Hor+ but not native. You have to do some hackery.

YouTube - Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2 - Eyefinity - Multiplayer - 5760x1080 / Widescreenfixer (not my video)

I played single player on eyefinity, was fun though HUD elements are streched.

I never played MW2 multiplayer really just not as good as BFBC2, and BFBC2 does support it native.

 

will eyefinity work on ps3 version of blackops?

 

No its a computer technology.

 

One of the tradeoffs in MW2 is concealment + accuracy bonuses when prone. One of the disadvantages of being prone is that rotating left and right spins your entire body around and makes you extremely visible. It is necessary to rotate slightly when aiming, but also to maintain spatial awareness. Often, people will give up the spatial awareness for the concealment. If you have a large FOV, you can maintain that spatial awareness while remaining prone. Just a thought.

 

like the wingnut said, i really love yur monitor setup, bro. it really makes me want to build a desktop everytime i see it.

appreciate what ya do for the NBR gaming community and keep it up. i might have to ask u for a few pointers once i move to a new house. i want to build me a REAL man cave.

 

LOL. I had a man cave. I actually built an arcade cabinet and a pseudo flight cockpit, big screen TV, and all my Red Wings paraphenalia. But it all went away after I had kids. It's their play room now. One day again though.

 

Eyefinity to me seems more about the immersion and the experience of gaming as Vicious has shown.

Gaining an advantage maybe, it's possible, but I don't see it being a problem at all. The advantage would be in your peripheral vision. As it is, even in the real world, our vision is limited by Field of View and the game settings are based on that. Our FOV in just real world, of what we can focus on at a time is about 90 degrees, everything else is in our peripheral. Although peripheral is important, but it's not an issue I would ban from using for gaming though.

So say in FPS you see someone moving in the peripheral. You'll likely won't change what you are doing because he is in your peripheral and away from doing damage to you. Plus you are taking fire from the front and you need to deal with what's in front of you. You won't deal with someone yous saw in your peripheral until they are within your Field of View. So the advantage is that you know someone is there and will have to deal with them later as to someone else just dealing as they appear in FOV. It's an advantage, better prepared I suppose, but it's not something I would rage and quit a game over because someone else has eyefinity setup.

 

For me I found FOV being important. I set mine to be 90 and it was too much and decreased down to 78 and it was much better. I personally just want to focus and be alert over what is happening to me. If it's a disadvantage, that's fine, it worked better for me.

Depends on the player. Increasing FOV = more dead for me as I was paying attention to what was not important too often and was not alert to someone popping up where I should have been focusing. FOV is something every player should experiment with until they get the optimal setting that allows them to focus and play well.

But I would agree. If it was competition, in a tournament, everyone should use the default FOV same as everyone uses the default game, without 3rd party mods etc. No advantages given to anyone, maybe even provide the computers so everyone is using the same hardware. Using your own mouse as long as macros are disabled possibly.

 

Err, now I have to buy two other display and a crazy gaming rig, thanks vicious. You owe me 2000$.

 

It's quite an advantage. I can't say for noob players, but even a few degrees more matters for pro players, just ask any FPSer who used to tweak FOV back in the Quake days before most games locked it. Humans make a great deal out of periphery vision and its evident just by taking it a way for a while (try to cross a busy street with your hands cupped around the sides of your eyes).

Eyefinity is a technology-boundary problem. We are at the boundary of a technology change where its clear one gives a significant advantage, but only to a select few who can afford it. As the mice replaced keyboard gaming, and the widescreen LCD replaced the CRT, we are in the transition to making super-widescreen FOV the norm, but until then, game developers are in a tricky spot, between catering to the masses and ensuring fair gameplay and showing of the best of their game.

 

I hate to say it, but unlike going from CRT to LCD or HDD to SSD, I don't see periphery gaming becoming the "norm". I see 3D gaming becoming more important as much as a gimmick as I think it is. It isn't realistic to expect customers to utilize three times the desk space for something somewhat trivial.

 

3 monitors will never be the norm, but it has evolved from being just a small nitch market.

Like I said its been around for over 4 years now, it was a small sect of people wiling to pay for expensive hardware (Matrox) and 3 monitors, and usually having to hack the games to make it work.

Now flash forward to present day and its a technology built directly into AMD & Nvidia GPU's and you have games actually advertising support for it and acknowledging the market.

So while it will never become the standard, I also think its definitely not going away and can only get bigger as time goes on.

 

Until now, multiple monitors have only really been for simulators and have really been a tiny niche. The Matrox graphics cards you talk about were always very crappy and completely unsuitable for 3d gaming. So really, what we have here is actually something quite new, the ability for anyone to play their favorite FPS on multiple monitors.

 

No Matrox is made for 3D gaming, nothing wrong with them. Its just a display adpater it matters not what content is on screen the gpu still did the work.

If your thinking it works like a USB VGA adapter where the cpu has to render stuff and it wont work for 3d and only 2d, they are totally different things.

The first VGA editons were limiting in resolution, but the newer digital version is a lot better

Eyefinity i still better yet though.

 

Oh, ok. I just looked on their website and I see what you are talking about with their current dual and triple head products that splits a single image into two or three parts. That still leaves you with the problem of having to force the game to display in the correct insane wide angle resolution with the correct field of view. Punkbuster would nail you for sure. Clearly a very 'niche' item.

Anyway, what I was thinking of was in the good old days Matrox was a second (or third) rate graphics card producer and one of their gimmicks was that their high-end graphics cards had this same feature built in. So you could output to multiple displays while the computer though it was one big display. Not very useful for gamers as their 3d performance was severely lacking. It has been probably 6 or more years since matrox made the wise choice to pull out of the consumer graphics card market.

 

Careful though, I mentioned "super-widescreen FOV", which will most logically become the norm. Everything we do in visualization and graphics is towards simulation of a world viewed by human eyes at upwards of 180 degrees (in comparison to today's average 90-120 degrees); this is what I mean "super-widescreen".

Whether it's achieved by multiple monitors or a surround-vision headset, is left for innovation to decide, but I have no doubt this is what the norm is progressing towards. Eventually images will be projected directly to each eye (either through emitted light, or directly through a nerve-interface), so 3D gaming as we know it now will remain just a gimmick.

In terms of actually having 3 monitors, I think a lot of people underestimate the trends in today's technology. The business world long discovered ago that even 2 monitors can increase productivity almost two-fold, and with LCD's the deskspace is negligible compared to the returns. It's not hard to imagine this extrapolating to 3 monitors in the same way some may have claimed a few decades ago that 40" TV's would be absurd and no one would want to waste that kind of floorspace... technology has a funny way of defying moderate estimates.

 

Yeah I had to make a slideshow today for work. I purposly did it at home just so I could use the multi monitors.

Pictures open in one monitor, Adobe Bridge on another, and the video editor in the center.

So beautiful, would be a pain to work on only one monitor for that kind of stuff.

 

does anybody know much about the new T410 thinkpad with optimus have the ability to run four display simultaneously.

 

You can run the monitors simultaneously but these will not be acting as one monitor.

6 monitors and a Eyefinity edition ATI 5870.

 

Eyefinity edition card? :O Ahah thats great!
Also I have a laptop with a Nvidia card, if I want to use two monitors as one I'll have to buy a special external device huh? And those cost a lot if I recall correctly.
Do you guys think 5850m can support eyefinity? Or the 460m?!

 

If you haven't been reading the thread too carefully, it's fairly easy to come to the very erroneous conclusion that eyefinity is a common technology when currently it's actually an ATI exclusive. The 5850m should support the feature but it doesn't have enough power to do multiple monitors.

 

Whoa, you're going way into the future. Computer displays haven't really changed much since the first monitors were used. CRT or LCD it's still a 2D image displayed on a relatively flat surface to convey what's coming out of the computer that a human can interpret. I don't see projecting directly to the eyes any form of display technology in the next 50 years. I'd like to see any documentation/proof indicating as such.

Also, if two monitors actually doubled productivity (again, links or proof please) and there was any real value behind that then you'd see every workplace with dual monitors. But you don't. So clearly it's not that much more effective. I don't doubt it helps, I have a second monitor, granted a cheap 1024x768 old lcd, but it helps just to use it while I do full screen of something else on my main monitor. It's also task-centric.

Regarding 40" TV's, rear projection TV's gained popularity in the 1980's. I don't think people would have found it a stretch that TV's would get bigger. I grew up through that era (yes I'm old). Getting thinner and smaller and lighter was a trend that has always followed, and wasn't hard to predict. Plus TV's and computer monitors are two different beasts. They largely use the same technology but for entirely different purposes for the most part.

 

For the direct-to-eye projection, I think he was talking about 3D technology, which already exists, and that is already the strategy that we use to generate 3D images. We have a variety of (kind of lame) strategies available to help us project images to each eye separately. In the near future, say 3-5 years, we will start seeing consumer devices use more novel techniques to get images sent to each eye. It is called autostereoscopy. We will have monitors that can generate 3d images for multiple viewers without the need for glasses. The nintendo 3ds, which is coming out very soon, is pretty significant as one of the first mainstream consumer devices that supports this type of technology.

 

Ok, wasn't sure because I mentioned that I thought 3D technology would be far in front of any wide/multiple/periphery screen technology. I agree with 3D tech. I only hope it isn't just a gimmick.