AMD's DX11 Radeons Can Drive Six 30 Displays 439
J. Dzhugashvili writes "Whereas most current graphics cards can only drive a pair of displays, AMD has put some special sauce in its next-generation DirectX 11 GPUs to enable support for a whopping six monitors. There's no catch about supported resolutions, either. At an event yesterday, AMD demonstrated a single next-gen Radeon driving six 30" Dell monitors, each with a resolution of 2560x1600, hooked up via DisplayPort. Total resolution: 7680x3200 (or 24.6 megapixels). AMD's drivers present this setup as a single monitor to Windows, so in theory, games don't need to be updated to support it. AMD showed off Dead Space, Left 4 Dead, World of Warcraft, and DiRT 2 running at playable frame rates on the six displays."
Re:damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
Traders.
Re:Merketing trumps reason again... ;) (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you know what bezel means.
Re:30" so? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they're implying, correctly, that larger displays generally have higher screen resolutions than smaller ones.
Peripheral vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words: Peripheral Vision.
Thats cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:6 screens or (Score:4, Insightful)
considering how fast video card prices drop it'd probably be cheaper just to buy a new, much faster card then to upgrade the memory.
Re:Reminds me of this cool setup (Score:5, Insightful)
The significant difference between the Radeon multi-mon setup and what that guy did is that the Radeon presents all the displays as a single display to Windows. You don't have to arrange the monitor icons in the Settings tab of the Display Properties, they all show up as one big monitor. This can be significant sometimes. For instance, on a dual-monitor setup I've seen video players act strangely when split down the middle (the video only played on the left display until the window was moved so the entire video was on the right monitor, and then it appeared).
Was Anti Aliasing and V-sync off? (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds impressive but it also sounds like a stunt more than reality.
Re:Merketing trumps reason again... ;) (Score:3, Insightful)
How about 6 projectors pointing in different directions running Milk Drop 2 visualizations of Pink Floyd.
Re:E-peen just keeps getting bigger? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why have LCD resolutions stalled out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because nobody else wants that. It's expensive to make higher resolution screens.
Re:How many slots does the card take up? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article sucks, that's what. Each card got a 8kx8k maximum resolution, so in theory you could have four such cards with 268 MP total. It's actually better spelled out in the AMD press release...
2. 268 megapixels is supported only with low refresh rates on future generation 8K x 8K display technology. For 3D gaming using current generation monitors and 60Hz refresh rates, 98.4 megapixels can be achieved.
Note that the last one is four times the MP count of this setup, so you should be able to drive a 5120×3200x6 = 98.4 MP display. I wouldn't exactly expect 3D performance at 15360x6400 effective resolution though...
Re:Meh (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, everything would be great if only the whole world realized you know the perfect way to use a computer and just followed along.
Arrogant cunt.
Re:damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
EXACTLY! If anything LCDs are going backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
The tube monitor I had in the late 90s ran at 1600x1200. Now over 10 years later my 24" LCD is a paltry 1920x1200. It pisses me off that vertical resolution hasn't increased. There is a reason newspapers and now web pages put text into narrow columns -- readability. My eyes work fine so I don't give a crap that fonts look smaller as dots per inch increase.
Now vendors are cheaping out further on 24" LCDs by using 1920x1080 panels as the default offering. A total lack of progress.
Don't even get me started that most netbooks are using something around a 800x600 (or 576) resolution screen. Are we returning to the windows 3.0 days? I bought a 11.6" gateway netbook primarily to get the whatever by 768 display. (if only they had a matte version in stores) Again small font for more vertical lines is a trade-off I'll take every time.
I'll save my rant of GNOME's special-ed style of font and icon size (see the 150% line height on the gnome website as the first mistake) for another day.
Re:gunna be great (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't wait to build a new computer in 2 years when prices go down and my computer becomes obsolete.
Such is the life of graphics whores.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are happy to play with our HD4350s and GF 6200s, and upgrading only once every five years or so, to the next bargain-bin card, whose R&D was paid by all of you :)
Oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.
- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
(Stolen from: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html)
*Ducks and runs*
Re:Merketing trumps reason again... ;) (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but it's possible that it doesn't support non-rectangular configurations (especially since it presents everything as one big virtual monitor to Windows).
Re:damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because they want to make better use of their screen real estate? Why do people prefer larger computer monitors and TVs? Because you see can see more and see better. I mean, do you also complain that your TV is maximized instead of displaying bits and pieces of other channels next to the program you're currently watching?
Most operating systems today are capable of multitasking, but most users are not. So if you're only using a single application, and you bought a 24" monitor, then why not use that space? If you're watching a movie, you can see a bigger picture. If you're surfing the web, typing a paper, writing code, or working on a spread sheet, you can see more content at once and scroll less.
Most people don't go out and buy a 24" monitor so that they can see more of their desktop background. The better question might be, why not maximize the application you're currently using? Most OSes have a windows manager or task switcher that allows quick and easy switching between programs. Windows even has a desktop shortcut in the quick launch bar for easy access to the desktop. There's really no advantage to not having your windows maximized and fully utilizing your screen real estate. It's also easier to focus on your work when there's nothing else cluttering the screen.
Many programs, such as IDEs or graphics applications like Photoshop or Illustrator, have a Workspace manager. That's because the developers realize that your screen setup and window layout are vital to user productivity and efficiency. With complex applications as these, you often have tons of widgets, toolbars, info panels, etc. that can take up significant display area. So it makes sense to use your screen real estate as efficiently as possible. It doesn't make sense to clutter your monitor with windows that have nothing to do with your current workflow.
On a 1280x1024 display, I usually don't have space to display all the tool panels and windows I need to work efficiently. On my current 1920x1600 display, I have just enough when the Application is maximized. Sure, I can get by on less screen area. But that usually means constantly opening & collapsing tool panels and a lot of scrolling back and forth. A bigger workspace also means I see my drawings in more detail; I can see more code at a time; and I can more easily & accurately navigate long web pages. Additionally, working with an application maximized allows you to better memorize the location of various panels and toolbars since they're always in the same position. Just as switching between different model keyboards leads to slower typing and more typos, a non-maximized window that's a different size and in a different position every time is similarly less efficient.
Re:gunna be great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:6 displays without OpenGL or any 3D, eh? thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
The card does OpenGL just fine, in this case it's the user being overly paranoid.