AMD Shows off 24 Panel Eyefinity on DirectX 11 Graphics Cards (VERY SEXY)

[August]

@ Jazzyy:

yeah, i see your points, but this is more about the 'wow factor' over the practicality of it. pretty much just eye candy and is indeed over the top.

[Shadowex3]

I'm willing to bet that in any real world test these graphics cards will not remotely be as impressive as these tech demos would suggest. Notice how they didnt say what resolution that was running at? Running ONE display at 1600x1200 will tax a graphics card in a modern game, running many with that level of detail would literally be making a single graphics card N times as powerful as the current crossfire and SLI setups. Any card since about 2001 has been powerful enough to do that with windows but to do it with a game? That's like claiming you've got a car that can do 200mpg and has 400 horsepower off of regular gasoline.

 

I think it's much more likely they've just found a cheap way to spread the signal across many displays and run them all combined at the resolution rather than anything truly revolutionary. The math just doesn't add up, if they have that much computing power on a single card they should be selling these things as replacements for supercomputers because of how powerful they would be.

[Akaru]

This is a good idea, but since monitors have to be held in a frame or the monitor itself, a lot of the video being projected is cut off by the monitor itself. I don't really like that.

[PotshotPolka]

I'm willing to bet that in any real world test these graphics cards will not remotely be as impressive as these tech demos would suggest. Notice how they didnt say what resolution that was running at? Running ONE display at 1600x1200 will tax a graphics card in a modern game, running many with that level of detail would literally be making a single graphics card N times as powerful as the current crossfire and SLI setups. Any card since about 2001 has been powerful enough to do that with windows but to do it with a game? That's like claiming you've got a car that can do 200mpg and has 400 horsepower off of regular gasoline.

 

I think it's much more likely they've just found a cheap way to spread the signal across many displays and run them all combined at the resolution rather than anything truly revolutionary. The math just doesn't add up, if they have that much computing power on a single card they should be selling these things as replacements for supercomputers because of how powerful they would be.

 

That and a card capable of performing these processes would probably be either too large for an ATX board, two large for anything but the largest full tower cases, and would run so goddamn hot it would require liquid cooling.

[Shadowex3]

Actually that's a misconception, liquid cooling is just using water to move the heat to a regular heatsink that's not mounted directly on the hot object. No passive cooling system will ever get you below ambient, and the average TRUE style heatpipe tower is just as good as water cooling for most things nowadays.

 

This is a good idea, but since monitors have to be held in a frame or the monitor itself, a lot of the video being projected is cut off by the monitor itself. I don't really like that.

 

This is the biggest giveaway that they're just splitting the signal somehow. If they were intelligently rendering stuff on an arbitrary number of monitors you wouldn't have "gaps" in the picture where the frames are, instead it'd be split between each monitor with no "blind spot" where there's no screen to display anything.

[Wrathek]

there was no mention of a blind spot. akaru just said it out of nowhere.

[Jager]

there does not appear to be a blind spot either, but much like the martox dual head and triple head the "splitter" card referenced in the press release is probably deciding which screen gets which part, as well as the fact that several of the screen shots show that he images if cut out and pasted together would form a correct image "suggest" that there is no "blind spot" being created.

 

that being said the upsizing the image and overall quality of the resolution is something that is not bein discussed because its likely just an expansion again on the matrox system. which in and of itself is avery good way to use multi monitors as a single large display, but id be more interested to see how many crossfired cards they are using into that splitter card to do 55 MP of resolution

 

edit it appears they are using quad crossfired cards, but are they dual gpu per card or single gpu? its unlikely that current gen single gpu cards can handle that kind of resolution unless dx11 improvements really have made the drivers utilize all the memory correctly.

[Shadowex3]

Read my post again, you both missed two important pieces.

 

1. The "blind spot" is the gap in the image where the frames of the monitors are. You can see it most clearly in the second picture where the yellow on the steering wheel is cut off by the edge of one screen but does NOT continue seamlessly on the next screen, instead treating the space between the monitors as part of the image that's just not being displayed.

 

2. ^^^ that is a pretty big giveaway that they're taking an easy way out rather than actually intelligently recognizing and using each monitor individually like Supreme Commander does.

 

Also they're only using one card for every N monitors, the picture of the first case shows that there's only one card in there for about 6 monitors. Even using quad-crossfire with dualgpu cards they'd still be pretty damn short on horsepower for 24 anti-aliased screens running at 1920x1200.

[August]

Notice how they didnt say what resolution that was running at?

 

the article stated that:

using six 30" LCD displays will give you an insane 7680x3200 pixel resolution for gaming! This setup is capable of 268 Megapixels!

[Akaru]

there was no mention of a blind spot. akaru just said it out of nowhere.

 

I didn't mean blind spots like Shadowex3 meant it. I meant that whatever is being displayed has to be cut into X amount of monitors and spaces apart due to the borders of the monitors. I never said that the spaces between 2 monitors are blind spots where they are cut off.

 

Original video output:

 

Shadowex3's explanation to my understanding. The orange spots are the "frames of the monitor and spacing"/"blind spots" and are not viewable:

 

My explanation. Every monitor projects a different frame, but each frame is cut up and spaced out. It will show all of the original video output, but will look weird. As you can see, the A doesn't look like an A anymore:

 

Personally, I think Shadoex3's explanation is more logically and practical. The video won't be deformed (unlike in my explanation), but parts will be unseen. In my explanation, all parts will be seen, but the video will be deformed.