I'm not sure really, I did like the 3 monitors for gaming, the peripheral view the side monitors give you is good I must say, tbf I only tried it in LFS and Oblivion so I didn't have much experience with it.

I think it's just my personal preference towards larger monitors tbh.

The next problem is driving 2 20s and a 30 at native res is going to be hard even for dual GTXs I would have said. Which means you'd probably have to run at a lower res, which might mean it'd be better to go for something like a 42" 1080p lcd or so for games, and then a nice high res monitor for work. Don't know really, just throwing ideas out there.

You may be right - according to this ("Resolution Limits & DirectX" - all the way near bottom), the limited resolution is due to DX9, while DX10 allows much greater resolutions.

However, I don't know if the 8800GTS or any hardware for that matter is up for the challenge for a native resolution for the recent setup that I'm looking at.

Most of the screenies I've seen so far (I've seen allot) were in 3840x1024, while I saw a few @ 5xxx*1024. Only 1024+ screenies I've seen were on single monitor setups.

I wonder what CineMassive are doing to be able to run 3x2560x1600 - however, none of the thumbs shown, displays anything 3D/game related... hmm.

i don't get how it says directx 9 is limited to 4096 pixels across. i have directx 9 and i have 4440x1050, and at one point when i was first messing around with stuff it was at 5120x1200. i guess maybe because softth doesn't handle it as "one screen" so the larger resolutions are possible on there.

those cinemassive displays are ridiculously over priced and don't look like they were made for gaming, i just used that site for ideas on what size monitors i wanted.

It's not directx9 that's the limiting factor, commercial cards before the 8xxx were not able to render more than 4096x4096 pixels. Can't remember why lol.

I used to run 2x17" and 1x20" each at their native resolutions (2x1280*1024 and 1x1680*1050) with a single GTS and got acceptable framerates in Oblivion with highish settings. The thing is my (now single 20") setup now struggles with games like Crysis on high etc.

hm.. see, mixed info.. no wonder I want to make sure about what to get :P

I read last night that the new Dell 3008 is/should be out, however there nothing about it on Dell's site.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/ ... -meet-3008wfp-displayport

Sounds like it's defenatly worth waiting for - so for now, I'll just use the extra time to figure out what to do, what can be done and.. in worse case, "only" buy me a 30".

Quote from pb32000 :

It's not directx9 that's the limiting factor, commercial cards before the 8xxx were not able to render more than 4096x4096 pixels. Can't remember why lol.

Probably DX9 had a minimum requirement of 4096*4096 so GPU manufacturers didn't bother to go any higher. With DX10 they increased the minimum so they updated the hardware.

Quote from r4ptor :

hm.. see, mixed info.. no wonder I want to make sure about what to get :P

I read last night that the new Dell 3008 is/should be out, however there nothing about it on Dell's site.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/ ... -meet-3008wfp-displayport

Sounds like it's defenatly worth waiting for - so for now, I'll just use the extra time to figure out what to do, what can be done and.. in worse case, "only" buy me a 30".

i don't know, personally i think a 30" monitor is kind of excessive for PC use. don't get me wrong it would be nice to have, but at the same time you could get 3 22" widescreens for less money and have way more monitor space.

Quote from UncleBenny :

i don't know, personally i think a 30" monitor is kind of excessive for PC use. don't get me wrong it would be nice to have, but at the same time you could get 3 22" widescreens for less money and have way more monitor space.

Yeah, I know - and I had my eyes on a similar setup too. I haven't decided anything yet though - only have preferences.

I haven't worked on a 30" before, but I've seen one in action. IMO it will be perfect to do gfx/vid related work.

Problem with a multi monitor setup is that I simply hate to span the app across multiple monitors. I much more prefer to limit each app to a single monitor - unless the app itself have a special multi monitor support, or allows various windows to be located outside of the app area - but not many apps do/allows that.

Besides - bigger width alone isn't enough, and not even the important aspect when it comes to working. If the monitor can't display more than 1200px on vert. axis, then it wont feel like an upgrade at all. I zoom and pan allot and have for several years now felt the need for more space. you could look at it as wanting a bigger desk, because you need the area for your stuff that you work with.

There's nothing stopping you from stacking two monitors vertically. By default, the maximise window button will make the window fit the monitor that the window occupies most space on. You'd need ultramon if you wanted to add a button that maximised it across all windows.

But stacking them horizontally would results in way higher screen area and I'll have to turn head up and down a tad too much. The border (bezel) would still be there.. me don't like borders :P

Quote from r4ptor :

Problem with a multi monitor setup is that I simply hate to span the app across multiple monitors. I much more prefer to limit each app to a single monitor - unless the app itself have a special multi monitor support, or allows various windows to be located outside of the app area - but not many apps do/allows that.

I dunno if I understood that correctly, BUT:

With my OLD 6800 and nVidia drivers, there is a LOT of advanced support for multiple monitors. One of the features allows you to limit windows (be it ALL windows, or specific programs) to one display when you maximize them. Then, even maximized, you can drag them between monitors, and they snap into place. Also, you can define which monitor(s) the start menu shows up in, and which monitors any error messages or dialogue boxes or pop-ups show up in. I was surprised at how thorough the support was for this kind of a setup. Just for configuring the screen setup, you can choose to have it show as one GIANT display, or 3 small displays or 3 clones, or all kinds of stuff. Trust me, you will be more than satisfied with the sheer number of configurable options you will have if you go for multiple monitors.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I dunno if I understood that correctly, BUT:

With my OLD 6800 and nVidia drivers....

Yes, you are right - I'm aware of all that as I've worked with dual monitor setups plenty of times and for long periods.

What I meant was that I prefer a single (larger) monitor because of the extra space/area I would get.

Ah. Thing is though (and just like you, I've not actually OWNED a giant 30" monitor - though I have fooled with them at the store) I really don't think I'd go for one giant display. Sure its a bit easier to use, but there are so many other advantages to multiple displays. Particularly, I really do think that having multiple displays, while offering less actual real-estate, provides more USEABLE space to work on. By being able to keep things in separate monitors, I really do thing that it would really be more efficient than one giant work surface. Not to mention the physical advantages of 3 screens. A 30" screen is so big that it has to be at a significant distance to see everything without tilting your head, whereas 2 smaller monitors can be positioned closer, and can be wrapped around where you work. It's just easier to organize open documents and programs into PHYSICAL spaces - just as its easier to organize your pantry if you have actual PHYSICAL shelves.

Also, if you ever need to go somewhere and take the computer, you can just take one small screen instead of a big, expensive one. Which is another point that you've already made; the giant screen is more expensive. I really don't think I'll ever even consider a giant screen as opposed to 3 small screens...

...unless I can get three GIANT screens, lol.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

...unless I can get three GIANT screens, lol.

That would be über

Don't get me wrong- I fully understand what you mean, but I've been working/doing (professionally/hobby) gfx related stuff for about 15 years now, and during that time build my own workflow. I want to be able to see a larger portion of forinstance a picture that I'm working on in Photoshop, rather than a smaller one, on a smaller monitor. I recently worked on about 25 illustrations, and was never able to view them in 1:1 without having to pan - I wasn't thinking about buying 30" back then - not buying any monitor at all, actually, but the need for something bigger came to me by itself - and I've felt this need for some years now.

Actually, if I had more space in my room, I would rather go with a 2 computer system. One for gaming with 3 smaller monitors, and one for work with a propper monitor for that kind of things.

So far I'm expecting the Dell to be good - far from Eizo standards, but way above average. But I don't have the possibility to see it without buying one. If it's poor in one way or other, then I'll return it immediately.

I think Apples 30" CMD was amongst the first, yes? I saw it 2 years ago and loved the design, but hated the display/image quality. I don't want a big monitor so I can brag etc, but because I really believe it will increase my productivity.

but anyways.. nothing is decided it - all this isn't just about monitors alone, but also about performance. Maybe I have to lower my aim, in order to get a balanced setup.

Quote from r4ptor :

all this isn't just about monitors alone, but also about performance. Maybe I have to lower my aim, in order to get a balanced setup.

Honestly, I really don't think you'll have to worry about performance too much - at least in LFS - regardless of the screen size.

Sounds good (I'm not too worried about LFS)